Jump to content
NQ-Nyzaltar

[DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics

Recommended Posts

Question about the proposed Force Field Unit:

 

Does the Force Field Unit create a type of 'safe zone' in the territory it is placed in while active (no PvP whatsoever) or does it create a barrier that prevents entry from unauthorized entities altogether?

 

If I read the DevBlog correctly, the FFU protects what is in the territory until it is damaged and reaches a threshold, at which point it stops protecting the entire territory and only protects the construct it is built on.  This is kind of a nice mechanic, as one side can still assault and disrupt a mining operation of an opposing entity without having to wait for a timer, but the defenders have a warning system that they are being attached and their assets aren't under immediate threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Setzar my take away was once someone starts attacking the constructs it will set up the bubble and be active for "24-48hrs" I assume rdms still has effect over what you do inside. So if RDMS says no hostile actions then you cant break it per what ever other consequences we have.

Share this post


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

We wouldn't be able to get off the planet without the rarer materials and the market would never take off.

How "true" is that and how much of a deal-breaker would it actually be considering alternative solutions would then emerge posing other possibilities?

 

I was under the impression Alioth would have all the basic resource ores for general construction.

 

Secondly even if it was true, some sort of "newbie": here's some materials for you to knock together and make your first flying carriage from and make your maiden voyage into space with or offers from orgs as such to entice membership?

Share this post


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

How "true" is that and how much of a deal-breaker would it actually be considering alternative solutions would then emerge posing other possibilities?

 

I was under the impression Alioth would have all the basic resource ores for general construction.

 

Secondly even if it was true, some sort of "newbie": here's some materials for you to knock together and make your first flying carriage from and make your maiden voyage into space with or offers from orgs as such to entice membership?

I was referring to if we made the entire planet under the ASA given how they worded the ASA area only having common and low end materials. So we need UA on Alioth still

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting write-up and, in my opinion, what's been described is a very good way to balance defence and offence.

 

Also, this idea has the added benefit of funnelling battles over territories into similar time periods, rather than having sporadic battles when two enemies happen to meet. I do agree with the conversation here that an additional method of informing players that the shield is under attack is also a good idea, though.

Share this post


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

I was referring to if we made the entire planet under the ASA given how they worded the ASA area only having common and low end materials. So we need UA on Alioth still

Yes I see, I just don't know the information on what common vs rare materials will entail and not entail.

 

All that said, Alioth is going to be HUGE. Maybe it will be a sacred haven of natural wilderness reserve not despoiled by humans and 100% for any players to live out their days in DU if they wish (while the devs gradually add ecosystems, hydroclimatic and other atmospheric systems) ??

 

Taking another punt at another leftfield vision of possibility.

Share this post


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

Or some rich troll just buys what He wants to troll others. If ppl built their monuments there it would be unfair and just Bad griefers f someone could simply outbid you and destroy the Monument (as He gets access to rdms->mine it).

 

Just put down 5 or 20 sanctuaries, spread your fleet equally and you can always bypass that too. Store loot there indefinitely, come back days or weeks later and transport everything to your main base. 

Still abuseable

Those are good points I had not considered.

 

I see the problem with bidding for territories, but I still think it would be useful to have some method of competing for territories in the ASA.  Ideally, new players are surrounded by territories that are active, attractive and useful, but there may be no way to ensure that.

 

The practicality of spreading weapons across territories depends on the cost of territory units and the rate at which the delay increases.  If the units are very expensive and the delay increases sharply, most organization would probably prefer to defend one territory in a normal area than acquire all the ones they need in a secure area.  While developers can readily adjust the number of weapons and the length of the delay, the cost of territory units has a wide effect beyond this issue.  One solution would be to have a long delay regardless of the number of weapons or even make the effect permanent.  The disadvantage is that everyone would then want to store their weapons before they entered a secure area, but that would create an opportunity for weapons banks at the borders.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Costanius said:

Make sure the safe zone on the starter planet is big enough for all the players! Otherwise it would get overcrowded fast.

I would like to suggest to make the whole starter planet a safe zone, not only the area around the arkship!

I think separate secure areas is a better solution than one large one.  It will be some time before we are able to leave the planet, so initially all activity will be on Alioth.  I would not like to see the secure area expanded beyond the 20 km planned for it.  Making the secure area too large would do too much to discourage combat.  Expanding the secure area later would upset people who already claimed territory there.

 

The MSA should allow additional secure territories to be added as they are needed.  To me,  multiple secure areas do not feel confining the way one large one would, even if the total number of territories is the same.  I feel the best situation is to be able to experience risk on a journey, but also have a secure destination and multiple secure areas allow that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ben Fargo said:

Those are good points I had not considered.

 

I see the problem with bidding for territories, but I still think it would be useful to have some method of competing for territories in the ASA.  Ideally, new players are surrounded by territories that are active, attractive and useful, but there may be no way to ensure that.

 

The practicality of spreading weapons across territories depends on the cost of territory units and the rate at which the delay increases.  If the units are very expensive and the delay increases sharply, most organization would probably prefer to defend one territory in a normal area than acquire all the ones they need in a secure area.  While developers can readily adjust the number of weapons and the length of the delay, the cost of territory units has a wide effect beyond this issue.  One solution would be to have a long delay regardless of the number of weapons or even make the effect permanent.  The disadvantage is that everyone would then want to store their weapons before they entered a secure area, but that would create an opportunity for weapons banks at the borders.

 

 

What IS "good", "useful" and "attractive" to players? Some stuff might be useful and nice to you but Not to 10 others. Who gets to decide in that?

 

No i think it's First come, first serve. Couple it with a monthly fee (If players get inactive - they lose the territory, maybe can pay for in advance plus it's a quanta sink for the Economy to balance Inflation)

 

It doesn't matter really as thus gets more expensive or not - you can use alts in neutral orgs for that. Each in another org. Pretty standard tactic.

 

Imho there should be a limit of x MSA per account (Not chars!). Have to think a bit more in the staging problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different gear from where we have been going. But I just realized that the FFU is said to protect the construct it is placed on....ships are constructs.....is a 24-48hr bubble placed on the ship then? and if so can the ship then move?

Share this post


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

UADD Unsecure Area Deflector Dish or NTDD Normal Territory Deflector Doohickey

 

Maybe a separate thread would make more sense for these suggestions.

Here's some ideas on the top of my head! (God help us)

How about?

 

- Subatomic Particle Deccelerator

or

- Ionic Statis Matrix  -/- Generator

 or

Electron Neutralizer Shield

 

and the best for last... (fot the men of culture)

 

** Neo Armstrong Cyclone Jet Armstrong Defence Module **

Share this post


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

Different gear from where we have been going. But I just realized that the FFU is said to protect the construct it is placed on....ships are constructs.....is a 24-48hr bubble placed on the ship then? and if so can the ship then move?

The owner of a territory located outside of a Secure Area will be able to set up a Force Field Unit to protect their Normal Territories

 

No ships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In principle I welcome the provision of additional "safe spaces" for those that are PVP-averse, but I'm also considering the consequences.

 

Safe zones protect the righteous from attack, but they also protect the evildoer's from reprisal...

 

I would like to suggest that not ALL moons should have MSA's, and that some planets should have NO moons with MSA's at all. When we start branching out to new solar systems, I'd also like to see some of them have no MSA's at all in the entire system. That would leave the possibility for some orgs to establish effective control over their entire system, with no "pockets of invulnerability" to create chaos.

 

The presence of MSA's in any area of space makes the work of player police and security services that much harder. Criminals now have a potential invulnerable logoff area, where their ships and assets cannot be touched, regardless of whether the location is known to the forces of law and order.

Share this post


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

In principle I welcome the provision of additional "safe spaces" for those that are PVP-averse, but I'm also considering the consequences.

 

I would like to suggest that not ALL moons should have MSA's, and that some planets should have NO moons with MSA's at all. When we start branching out to new solar systems, I'd also like to see some of them have no MSA's at all in the entire system. That would leave the possibility for some orgs to establish effective control over their entire system, with no "pockets of invulnerability" to create chaos.

My guess is a lot of these are necessary BEFORE large player orgs create major Civilization Zones/Empires - as well as - for Newbie players starting at and near Alioth.

 

So agree, with the middle pattern as written above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That DevBlog is a great expansion to the existing save-zone system. I was never really happy with the Arkship-only-system.

 

Considering the recent posts, I’d like to add that safe zones should ALLWAYS be rare…. Otherwise it would just take away the need to cooperate with others! It should be up to the players to build yourself a safe place, and NQ shouldn’t spoil us too much with safe zones.

 

But besides that those MSAs will really be a crucial incentive to spread the playerbase outwards to other planets.

They could act as seed for a civilization center around them; however there is also the potential that they will just be used as a resource-bank by rich players, who are able to just buy a territory there with DACs. It seems to me that NQ already considers this by providing special Sanctuary Territory Units. The information in the DevBlog is extremely vague. But based the topic of the post (“home sweet home”) my theory is that every player will be allowed to claim 1 Sanctuary Territory for free (or very cheap). Thereby preventing that multiple sanctuaries are occupied by a single player, which would e.g. give him a total monopoly on a certain moon.

However with potentially millions of players I think not everyone should be able to find one! I hope MSA territories will still be extremely rare, like <10 territories per moon, so it’s more of an org-effort to get one. To spread the rare MSA zones more equally, and make them more rewarding for dedicated players they should also be hidden. It should require at least 1 week of dedicated scanning of the moon to discover one MSA territory.

To me this sort of territory-hunting would sound like a very engaging endgame activity.

 

 

Regarding organization territory I can actually agree with coke about the problems with building up large city areas. This made me thinking if we actually have a good system to promote these kind of projects:

On 30.1.2018 at 7:50 PM, FleetAdmiralCoke said:

I can't speak for other organizations, but I know that several of the larger organizations have talked about building cities as a project.  In a lot of cases, we're choosing the locations of these cities because of their geographic locations and those won't necessarily be predetermined secure areas.  Will it be planned to be able to protect these cities and creations later on when they are not in the designated secure zones?

 

And to my understanding the protection bubble (force field) system would only work well on smaller scale, like for protecting a couple of important constructs inside one territory. But for a large city area, or even half a continent, using hundreds of little individual protection bubbles would simply not make for good gameplay in my opinion!

 

 

Therefore I'd like to propose a system where large orgs can basically create their own safe zone:

 The idea is to reward people cooperative efforts by essentially upgrading normal territories to semi sanctuary level, once enough conjuncted territories are claimed in an area.

Even if a war with another org is going on the buildings inside this upgraded territories cannot be destroyed so no force fields are required, however the territory can still lose its sanctuary status, if the org loses its claim on the surrounding territories.  This would even make large scale wars more interesting, as they would have a real frontline at the border, while the center of large cities still remain relatively safe. Battles would be drawn out around the fortified border territories, and not around where in the orgs territory someone has triggered another 48 hour bubble.

 

Ok, having that many 100% no-PVP safe zones may be a bit drastic, so there should probably be a variety of gradations of “safer” zones without ever fully disabling PVP:

- When a territory is fully enclosed by other territories it should gain tier 1 save-zone status, which would create an overall 150% defender bonus, and immediately flag any PVP going on in this area.

- A territory enclosed by 2 layers of territories should gain tier 2 save-zone status, which would be almost sanctuary level of protection. However it should always allow limited AvA combat, so assassins and thieves could still operate in a huge city. But it will obviously be very hard to actually snipe a player there. Similar to EVEs system in high-sec, where you can still attack someone if you really want to.

 

Here's a little reference to visualize how the border of a large organization territory would look with the different safety layers:

hexSafety.png.8238bef8a10ddeb39560d4ad32ffe15b.png

 

This system would force players to work together even more, and make it very difficult to maintain a small org with just 1 claimed territory. It may annoy some people that they can’t achieve that much with their small org of friends, but I’m sure it would be very beneficial for the overall atmosphere of the game. Small orgs can still be a legit playstyle if they move to some very remote area, and find a MSA territory. This should basically be like winning the lottery for solo-players/explorers.

The goal for the safe-zone system should be to avert any possible Pay2Win mechanics, while actually rewarding cooperative efforts of players/organizations.

I think my idea would fit very well to the already existing territory protection mechanics. It’s obviously hard to balance all this, and player generated safe zones should really have other drawbacks (which I didn’t come up with jet), so they are not totally op… But I definitely think NQs current 100% safe, or 0% safe approach is way too simplified to properly facilitate all the political dynamics that should be going on in the game.

 

PS: sorry for the wall of text, it started out much shorter when I first started formulating the idea. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ben Fargo said:

Several people have expressed concerns about secure areas being used as staging areas for attacks.  My suggestion for solving that would be to make any weapons that were in a secure area inoperable for some time after they leave it.  The length of time would depend on the number of weapons in one territory.  If there were few weapons, the delay would only be a second or two.  As the number of weapons increased, the delay would extend to several minutes and then several hours.  The delay have almost no effect on someone who carried a couple weapons for protection, but it would make storing an invasion fleet impractical, since it would need wait that time defenseless in a normal area before it could be used.  The explanation for the delay would the technology that inhibits the use of weapons in a secure area becomes overloaded if too many are concentrated in one territory.  When it is overloaded, it can not keep up with removing the inhibition when the weapons leave the area.

 

This seems like an interesting idea.  Or something along these lines to make sure Secure Areas don't have any strategic uses in PVP.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn in regards to this matter, I like that players will have the ability to get MSA to be safe from those of us that like pvp.

 

However, the other side of me agrees that those areas can be used by griefers to stage attacks and quickly retreat to there, where no one can do anything about it. (Which is seems like that's going to be the case)

 

However, the third side of me thinks that, that is totally fair and reasonable since it adds yet another level of gameplay. 

 

Without knowing the details in-depth regarding this new area, MSA and Sanctuary Units, I'm left in a limbo stage, where I can't decide what conclude on.

 

 

Cheers,

Comrademoco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to get my opinion on the subject in quickly;

 

  1. Having safe zones around the Arkship is great - we need somewhere where all players can play. My only real concern is the possible abuse of ownership. Lets say I build up enough and quickly claim as many zones as possible. I then either quit the game or troll players (perhaps trap bases, wall around the Arkship itself, etc). I think there should be additional requirements placed on anyone who wishes to own and continue ownership of a safe zone. Some examples below...
    • Required login (perhaps monthly?)
    • Cost of ownership (to maintain the territory unit, run it, etc)
  2. I think a tiered system of safety would be better. This in specific regards to territory unit/protection itself. Each tier obviously becoming much more expensive to operate and create. Again, examples below.
    • Territory Unit - Claims the territory, allows RDMS management (excluding certain features).
    • Level 1 PU - Includes protection of all structures on the territory.
    • Level 2 PU - Protection of surrounding territories increased by one tier (if owned by org or allies).
    • Level 3 PU - Increases the duration of protection of the zone by X hours. Any further upgrades to the Protection Unit only increse duration up to a maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

  1. examples below...
    • Required login (perhaps monthly?)
    • Cost of ownership (to maintain the territory unit, run it, etc

I don’t really like the idea of a tiered system, as I think all units should be the same.  Other than the differences between moon and arkships.  But I do think people should get their territory ownership booted if they don’t physically visit the claim in 2-3 or so weeks.  Only for claims within safezones of course 

 

I’d also like to echo the belief that moons should be relatively scarce further away from the arkship.  Perhaps all the moons on the arkship could be safe... but further out, I want rare resources to be found on moons as well.  Having safezones gets rid of the chance for rare resources on those moons 

 

I think exploring the moons surrounding a planet and attempting to harvest them is a pretty big gameplay feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shadows said:

Just want to get my opinion on the subject in quickly;

 

  1. Having safe zones around the Arkship is great - we need somewhere where all players can play. My only real concern is the possible abuse of ownership. Lets say I build up enough and quickly claim as many zones as possible. I then either quit the game or troll players (perhaps trap bases, wall around the Arkship itself, etc). I think there should be additional requirements placed on anyone who wishes to own and continue ownership of a safe zone. Some examples below...
    • Required login (perhaps monthly?)
    • Cost of ownership (to maintain the territory unit, run it, etc)
  2. I think a tiered system of safety would be better. This in specific regards to territory unit/protection itself. Each tier obviously becoming much more expensive to operate and create. Again, examples below.
    • Territory Unit - Claims the territory, allows RDMS management (excluding certain features).
    • Level 1 PU - Includes protection of all structures on the territory.
    • Level 2 PU - Protection of surrounding territories increased by one tier (if owned by org or allies).
    • Level 3 PU - Increases the duration of protection of the zone by X hours. Any further upgrades to the Protection Unit only increse duration up to a maximum.

Territory units will be expensive to maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I scanned through the blog again, but I didn't really see anything on maintenance.  Mind pointing me in the right direction?  It's probably right in front of my face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, seennotheard said:

Territory units will be expensive to maintain.

That would largely defeat their purpose in the case of MSA's...

 

Safe zones are not aimed at large orgs or organised groups, they're there to protect the assets of the solo/small group player. Making their protection unaffordable means the feature will not be utilised widely by its intended audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NanoDot said:

That would largely defeat their purpose in the case of MSA's...

 

Safe zones are not aimed at large orgs or organised groups, they're there to protect the assets of the solo/small group player. Making their protection unaffordable means the feature will not be utilised widely by its intended audience.

Okay, maybe not expensive to maintain, but they will definitely be expensive at launch.

"We want the Territory Unit to be hard to make because we don’t want a sort of gold rush at the start the game, that would favor early players and reduce the gameplay to “get as much TU as possible before it’s too late”."

Share this post


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

Okay, maybe not expensive to maintain, but they will definitely be expensive at launch.

"We want the Territory Unit to be hard to make because we don’t want a sort of gold rush at the start the game, that would favor early players and reduce the gameplay to “get as much TU as possible before it’s too late”."

Yeah, expensive to build is good imho.  Otherwise orgs would completely take over some safezones.  Better avenues to use their assets then.

 

Difficult to maintain?  Eh, I’d much rather have a system that boots for inactivity than with micromanagement.  Just because a guy is broke doesn’t mean he should be booted imho.

 

Haven’t visited a territory in a safezone in x period?  Axed.  Obviously with emails and in game messages going out to notify the person at certain intervals. 

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...