Jump to content
NQ-Nyzaltar

[DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics

Recommended Posts

On 3/29/2018 at 3:34 PM, CalenLoki said:

. Fix the problems with deep underground bases. Max of 50m of rock armour seems like something you can blow through with some effort, unlike 400m.

How is that a problem? It's as if you would be validating a terrorist's complaint that today's airport security is too tight for them to get an explosive on a plane.

 

People hiding bases deep underground is absolutely not a 'problem'. Part of the need/wish to do so stems from the war-mongering and apparent desire to turn the game into a big battlefield as quickly as possible quite a few are advocating here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, quite the opposite. It's like anti-terrorists complaining that they can do nothing against few terrorists who dig a bunker right next to airport, and are shooting at planes from there.

 

If there is no drawbacks to hiding underground, then all the advantages of doing so will make surface bases obsolete in combat.

Would be boring.

 

There are better ways of promoting defense, without forcing people into holes. I.e.  cost-effectiveness of guns vs their weight-effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with blazemonger in this, and your argument about the terroris bunker doesnt hold, your terrorist could be my freedom fighter and Thats the idea in DU. So everyone is free to build that bunker and arm it to the teeth. The will to be able to destroy all basses or conquer them or loot them as fast as possible does feel like a nice troll setup and i dont think thats the meaning of DU to provide a fast way to kill the fun of alot of players for the fun of a few destructors that will probably leave after a week or two finding out that detroying everything in sight doesnt make you a respected member of the community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what @Aaron Cain said with regards to the comments made by @CalenLoki ;

 

People are not going underground because they want to, they go underground because too many here are advocating the game should be about PVP and as such anything not in their interest should be attacked and destroyed. This tactic has already spawned a number of threads here where people voice their concerns about this only to be met with 'then defend yourself'. When that defence then comes in the form of underground bases the same PVP loving horde start crying about how that is unbalanced which frankly is absolute nonsense and just shows that you want your pewpew and expect to be handed a way in even if it means NQ will have to nerf to get there.

 

Get a spai in the org that has the underground base, let him gain trust and get access to the front door, then overrun the base. That is fair game and well played when pulled off. But yeah, I know.. Effort and such..

 

Instant gratification should never be a motivator for changing game mechanics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, blazemonger said:

Get a spai in the org that has the underground base, let him gain trust and get access to the front door, then overrun the base. That is fair game and well played when pulled off. But yeah, I know.. Effort and such..

 

shhh-logo.png

 

Shh, before people actually get creative ideas OR, god beware, try them.

 

Other than that, people usually go by the low hanging fruits. It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but some here dont even want low fruits, they want to lay under the tree and let the fruit fall right into their mouths.  Well see me as the bird that sees them lying and takes a dump in that nicely opened cavity :P

 

If you want rewards/loot work for it and DU is just like any form of evolution, the harder they fight for rewards, the thicker the defense will become.

Share this post


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

Well see me as the bird that sees them lying and takes a dump in that nicely opened cavity :P

 

Dump and run huh? That would indeed leave a shitty taste in their mouths!  :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you build a ship, is it possible to park it on a safe zone when not playing? What would be a reason then to build a fixed contruction on non safe zone? Are they mines and other production buildings that can't be built into ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pekka1 said:

If you build a ship, is it possible to park it on a safe zone when not playing? What would be a reason then to build a fixed contruction on non safe zone? Are they mines and other production buildings that can't be built into ship?

There's not much stopping this nomad style of play, and I've even considered doing so myself, but there are a few holes in your plan: You can't use territory units on dynamic constructs (ships), and size for ships is kind of limited right now by the core sizes. A ship would have a hard time scripting a bunch of smaller dynamic cores, voxel, and elements to fly together, than to just set down a few. extra cooridoors in a base or static  construct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And maybe the person who ownes the safezone just confiscates your ship :P I know i would if you landed on my safezone with no rights on it, lets call it parking fee :D. We all need to make a buck or two

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:

And maybe the person who ownes the safezone just confiscates your ship :P I know i would if you landed on my safezone with no rights on it, lets call it parking fee :D. We all need to make a buck or two

 

LOL. You have a point though. Many safe-spaces if not all outside the lunar havens and alioth starter zone will probably be costly to go through, with a fee for landing, and many renting out space inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried my best but while reading this thread I can't find answer on my question:

 

If I somewhere in the wild build outpost and I do not have TU, what will happen to my outpost if someone "cover" it with his own TU ??

 

Thx in advance for answer :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spavle99 said:

I tried my best but while reading this thread I can't find answer on my question:

 

If I somewhere in the wild build outpost and I do not have TU, what will happen to my outpost if someone "cover" it with his own TU ??

 

Thx in advance for answer :)

 

There's no specific answer to that question yet, but logic dictates that you will lose your base if the new owner of the hex doesn't want it there. They would be free to destroy that base (if they can), which applies to any structure "in the wild".


The new hex owner's RDMS rules will apply, which means you may need to ask permission to build or dig in that hex. You won't be able to make any changes to your base without the hex owner's permission, which means you won't be able to repair damage or place new defenses, etc..

 

What's the use of having a territory claim mechanism if it doesn't allow complete control of a territory hex, including all existing structures in that hex ?

Share this post


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

What's the use of having a territory claim mechanism if it doesn't allow complete control of a territory hex, including all existing structures in that hex ?

A Territory claim mechanism, should not be able to be used as a weapon. You should only be able to place one if the territory is free of static structures. If you want to place one around a established base you should have to win the war FIRST.

 

IMnsHO

 

In a more general sense, attacking a city state and winning should be very hard, and must require a very large army of ships and players. If one asshat in a stealth ship can land on a planet and wipe out a city, then those of us who build cities will simply not play the game.

Share this post


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

A Territory claim mechanism, should not be able to be used as a weapon. You should only be able to place one if the territory is free of static structures. If you want to place one around a established base you should have to win the war FIRST.

That scenario implies that all claims must work on a "scorched earth" basis, which is a somewhat one-dimensional view, because it prevents the possibility of "friendly takeovers".

 

It also raises the possibility of "blockers" being placed, which may or may not become a serious irritant depending on how things work out.

 

What if the respective parties come to an agreement, allowing the existing structure to remain and become a tenant ? The hex owner's RDMS rules cannot be applied to selective areas inside the hex only, they will override everything. If a hex cannot be claimed without destroying all existing structures first, then a friendly takeover is not possible without reimbursing the existing structure owners, which becomes an unnecessary expense... or perhaps the basis for extortion attempts... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tordan said:

A Territory claim mechanism, should not be able to be used as a weapon. You should only be able to place one if the territory is free of static structures. If you want to place one around a established base you should have to win the war FIRST.

I disagree with this.

 

If you really wanted the land you would have claimed the territory for yourself.

 

In DU you take the chance of losing everything on that land if you dont.

 

The mechanism isnt a weapon at all, but if you take the risk of not claiming the land you are on, and someone else claims it, then you just lucked out.

 

You take your chances, you roll the dice, and see what unfolds.

 

Naturally, you can always setup in a safe zone where nobody can touch you - problem solved. ;)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 7:14 PM, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

Hi everyone!

 

A new Devblog has been released on Territory Protection Mechanics: you can find it here!

As we plan to post now all DevBlog articles directly on the website, we will have one dedicated topic per Devblog.

Feel free to give your feedback in the present topic for "Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics".

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

 

Perhaps you could use a simpler mechanic. all territories units are safe unless:

a) Territories can have 3 modes peace , unstable , war

peace = no pvp ,  

War is declared against an organisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mucus said:

Perhaps you could use a simpler mechanic. all territories units are safe unless:

a) Territories can have 3 modes peace , unstable , war

peace = no pvp ,  

War is declared against an organisation

Ahhh... no. That would leave most territory as no pvp. Again no.

If you want nobody to potentially shoot you simply stay in one of the many provided safe areas and u will be fine  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 6:15 AM, CoreVamore said:

Ahhh... no. That would leave most territory as no pvp. Again no.

If you want nobody to potentially shoot you simply stay in one of the many provided safe areas and u will be fine  ;)

 

The assumption that everyone would want to have peace status would infer that that would be the majority of players wishes and thus it would make sense not to coral players in to spots and limit playability for them for PVP. That said, I would expect certain zones to be fixed to allow certain  territory modes only EG: a planet could be deemed only to support  unstable , or war or both.  There is nothing to say this cannot be changed by events also, eg: acts of war , organisation war or changes in economy or politics. What we don't want is that players join , have a limited game experience because non PVP players are not catered for as much as PVP players. This actually is probably the crux of the issue . Eg: how to balance gameplay for both.

 

I should explain further that , Peace = no PVP without serious consequences to the attacker, Unstable = No Construct destruction but personal combat PVP allowed . War - full pvp both personal and construct . Perhaps you could suggest something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even think it is possible to make non-PVP and PVP players completely happy in the same game world, it has to lean more towards PVP, especially with emergent gameplay as a defining feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mucus said:

The assumption that everyone would want to have peace status would infer that that would be the majority of players wishes and thus it would make sense not to coral players in to spots and limit playability for them for PVP. That said, I would expect certain zones to be fixed to allow certain  territory modes only EG: a planet could be deemed only to support  unstable , or war or both.  There is nothing to say this cannot be changed by events also, eg: acts of war , organisation war or changes in economy or politics. What we don't want is that players join , have a limited game experience because non PVP players are not catered for as much as PVP players. This actually is probably the crux of the issue . Eg: how to balance gameplay for both.

 

I should explain further that , Peace = no PVP without serious consequences to the attacker, Unstable = No Construct destruction but personal combat PVP allowed . War - full pvp both personal and construct . Perhaps you could suggest something.

Umm I really dont have to suggest anything when NQ has already stated and outlined its territory mechanics on both worlds, moons and asteroids.

 

Some people equate a PvP zone as "shit Im going to get killed" - nothing could be further from the truth. Most PvP zones will be 'controlled' by one faction or another. Provided you are with that controlling faction that zone can be very peaceful and safe. (I lived in nullsec in Eve for several years to the point that I considered highsec space to be the wild west).

 

And remember NQ has said on many occasions that they want to reproduce something like what happens in Eve Online, and that is combat oriented everywhere! At least in DU you get large safe zones for the fragile amongst us.

 

NQ is working on the balance of these safe zones. But when you have entire moons that are classified as Sanctuary Moons I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks DU is all PvP and pew pew!

 

I think NQ already has the balance right, they just have to decide on the size of the safe zone at the spawn point around the ship, which from memory is a 20km radius zone. And before you tell me thats not big enough remember that here on earth we can pack millions of people into such a space.

 

So you may ask me if I am a warmonger? Nopes. Im a builder who also knows when to stand up and fight for my turf. (I run a DU design group after all).

 

I would encourage NQ to keep going down the path its going and for those people that dont have a clue as to whats planned to use the search feature on the top right of the page (As well as look at NQ's youtube vids), to get a more thorough understanding of whats ahead ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:

Umm I really dont have to suggest anything when NQ has already stated and outlined its territory mechanics on both worlds, moons and asteroids.

 

Some people equate a PvP zone as "shit Im going to get killed" - nothing could be further from the truth. Most PvP zones will be 'controlled' by one faction or another. Provided you are with that controlling faction that zone can be very peaceful and safe. (I lived in nullsec in Eve for several years to the point that I considered highsec space to be the wild west).

 

And remember NQ has said on many occasions that they want to reproduce something like what happens in Eve Online, and that is combat oriented everywhere! At least in DU you get large safe zones for the fragile amongst us.

 

NQ is working on the balance of these safe zones. But when you have entire moons that are classified as Sanctuary Moons I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks DU is all PvP and pew pew!

 

I think NQ already has the balance right, they just have to decide on the size of the safe zone at the spawn point around the ship, which from memory is a 20km radius zone. And before you tell me thats not big enough remember that here on earth we can pack millions of people into such a space.

 

So you may ask me if I am a warmonger? Nopes. Im a builder who also knows when to stand up and fight for my turf. (I run a DU design group after all).

 

I would encourage NQ to keep going down the path its going and for those people that dont have a clue as to whats planned to use the search feature on the top right of the page (As well as look at NQ's youtube vids), to get a more thorough understanding of whats ahead ;)

 

My prerogative is to suggest what I like as a counter discussion and the fact that you are insulting other players really shows the type of player you are. Have a nice day!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mucus said:

My prerogative is to suggest what I like as a counter discussion and the fact that you are insulting other players really shows the type of player you are. Have a nice day!!

I think you should re-read what I said, there are zero insults in my text, just facts.

 

Please take a chill pill  ;)

 

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

×