Jump to content
NQ-Nyzaltar

[DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Hades said:

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. 

I don't think that would work well with DU. Interplanetary travel takes days, so visiting all your territories regularly could be a problem even for an active player.

Share this post


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

I don't think that would work well with DU. Interplanetary travel takes days, so visiting all your territories regularly could be a problem even for an active player.

EVE has an ancient saying: "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose".

 

Perhaps in DU we can add: "Don't claim what you can't visit regularly"... ;)

Share this post


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

I don't think that would work well with DU. Interplanetary travel takes days, so visiting all your territories regularly could be a problem even for an active player.

I think it would work perfectly for DU.  If you don't visit the territory, you shouldn't hold it.  It would require careful planning before placing down a territory.  It would also make territories more fluid, as an old vet doesn't need, or utilize, their MSAs on the starting zone... but a new player would.  And if you have a huge market rolling in the starting system, you better be visiting more than 1ce every 3 weeks.

 

However, I do think it should be dictated by the RDMS.  You could give certain people access to the ability to manage your territory controllers.  This would be mighty useful for a large org.

 

Also, travel times will decrease as technology grows.

 

As an aside, I think it should be relatively simple to retrieve a territory control unit.

 

Edit:

I would like to reiterate, the timer should only be for MSAs and ASAs.  If your defenses can hold a territory in UA territory, by all means... it’s yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the worse thing Novaquark could do would be to introduce MSA's and then make them scarce and expensive to force players to find security elsewhere.  As the devblog said, forcing a style of playing on people will more likely cause them to leave than change.  I am strongly in favor of the MSA's, but I would prefer to not have them implemented at all if they are not available to everyone who wants one.  They do not need to be on every moon or in every system, but there should be enough of them somewhere.  Otherwise, effort will be wasted developing something that still can be abused and produces bitter former players who feel feature they expected was not actually available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They shouldn’t be easy to get either though.  If a ship is difficult for a solo player to get (in matter of hours/days even) then a territory control unit should be a week or so.

 

Land should be coveted, and every legally owned piece of land should be hard-fought for.  (Not physically of course, no PvP involved... but you get what I mean).

 

If land is easy to get, early players are going to snag everything.  And I do mean everything, just because they can.  Heck, if territory control units are a dime a dozen I’ll place them (the maximum limit) down immediately personally.  If I need to move it, I imagine that’s possible.

 

But if they’re expensive, and take a lot of effort to build... then I’ll place one down, and work on my other ventures outside of safezones.  Allowing other players to get their shares.  The more diverse amount of players that get their shares, the more that go up for grabs when they end up quitting.

 

Edit:

Honestly, I don’t think every player needs their own plot of land.  If someone can profit from making a garage for people to park their items... I imagine they will.  The fact that a safezone is there is all that matters 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hades

 

First, I think we have a different idea of expensive.  I expect it will normally take a single player or even a small organization months to get a ship, not hours or days. (Of course, they might get a loan for one, but then it would still take months to repay it.)  I agree a normal territory unit should cost much more than a ship. 

 

However, I am guessing and hoping the sanctuary units will be  considerably cheaper, since they can only be used in a MSA.  Sanctuary units are bound to an account and while I am not certain, I assume that means each account can have one and only one sanctuary unit.  In any case, I would prefer that each account is limited to one.  If it took the average player a week to earn a sanctuary unit, I would consider that a reasonable cost, not expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a reasonable approach.

I have seen similar way of balancing pve-pvp for players.

The one thing that bothers me is that, if I'm correct higher level resources are in pvp zones?

If those resources are required to make end game or worse, mid game content then your forcing non pvp players to enter pvp.

Trading for the resources usually does not work very well since everyone will have access to the resources in pve.

There trade value is usually very low. 

Don't know if I'm being overly half empty here.?

 

Share this post


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

This seems like a reasonable approach.

I have seen similar way of balancing pve-pvp for players.

The one thing that bothers me is that, if I'm correct higher level resources are in pvp zones?

If those resources are required to make end game or worse, mid game content then your forcing non pvp players to enter pvp.

Trading for the resources usually does not work very well since everyone will have access to the resources in pve.

There trade value is usually very low. 

Don't know if I'm being overly half empty here.?

 

Just see it as a dynamic:-

 

* Safe Zones attract builders and high player counts (high density) but have low value resources or low diversity of value of resources (both).

* Danger Zones attract pvpers and have low player counts (high distribution) but have high value resourses or high diversity of value of resources (both).

 

Remember connecting the two due to differences caused by DISTANCE of these = TRADE (And War).

 

I'm fairly sure that is the main idea between BUILDERS (faucet) who need resources to build <=> PVPers (sink) who capture resources to deliver and if that's successful Builders turn from consumers into value-added producers and likewise PvPers turn from producers into value-added consumers.

 

In both cases both of these are constructive and dependent on each other.

Share this post


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

The one thing that bothers me is that, if I'm correct higher level resources are in pvp zones?

Nope there is no PvP zone here, only no rule zone  which outside ArkShip Safezone. 
 

 

5 hours ago, Grimscale said:

If those resources are required to make end game or worse, mid game content then your forcing non pvp players to enter pvp.

That is Risk and Reward. IF you want to be good you have to risk, or else you can choose safe way but it dont reward you too much. This encourage player to go on adventure, to do something not boring, to risk their life/property but they will get reward .
You cant stay in safe zone (ASA ) for entire of the game and got good gear like those who go outside and risk their life.

 

5 hours ago, Grimscale said:

There trade value is usually very low. 

it will follow Demand and Supply . Maybe a type of resource will be cheap during normal time but in crisis time ( like WAR , or economic crisis ) it will change very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

@Setzar 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?

 

There is a difference between static and dynamic constructs, I believe, depending on the the initial placed core.
Protection bubble generators therefore could only be deployable on static constructs.

.

Edited by Razorwire
wrong quote :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. Well, I guess this just isn't the game for me. 

 

I do admire what you've accomplished and I agree with your design choices, given your stated objectives. 

If I'm being honest, I don't think I would have backed the game had I known you were going in this direction.

Not a big deal. Just not the game for me. 

 

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?

Share this post


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

Hmmmm. Well, I guess this just isn't the game for me. 

Sorry to hear that.

Though to be fair to NQ, this was always stated as the intention from the beginning: The arkship safezone(s) and the rest is like EVE: PvP weapons free (not free of weapons).  The MSA's are a recent welcomed addition.

 

5 hours ago, Legolad said:

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....  Quidditch on Speeder Bikes anyone?

This will happen regardless. Will these type of games be 100% without risk? No.  But I am sure we can get by with a little help from our friends. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I'm really glad to see solid build protections, it is interesting that we'll have a sort-of soft safezone in the form of sanctuary zones. I'm eager to hear more about this, but it sounds like Sactuary zones will be the perfect place to store and trade in stolen goods as I would suspect it would be closer to high-resource areas, and an optimal place for raiders to make a "safe" base to launch attacks from. It would also potentially be possible to use sanctuary zones as end or start points for trade ambushes (where you have a lucrative trade set up in a remote zone, with the intent of hitting the trader before or after the trade). Assuming the goods survive the attack, you'd be able to put them right back in the sanctuary zone lol.

 

I do really appreciate that there will be a couple of solid options to keep a tile safe long-term. This will allow non-mining infrastructure to be stable, so we could actually have booming economic centers and development centers in non-safezones.

 

Twek and his ilk going to be pissed when the find this out though lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main unit should have to be fueled. This way, when somebody leaves the game it becomes vulnerable and the space can be reclaimed.

 

Then, a similar setup where there is a secondary, different  fuel for the invulnerability timer. So if someone knows they can't get back to it within 48 hours, fill 'er up. But if someone knows there's at least someone every 6 hours then put 6 hour's worth in there. Or my favourite, 12 hours, so that it's unlikely the other team will be online when it comes out of invul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The force field mechanic looks like a similar mechanic in eve online. However it comes with many draw backs.

 

First of all: Will the owner of the force field unit be able to select a time frame where the structure is going to be destructable or will it just be 24-48 hours after the attack which could end up in a very bad time zone for the owner?

 

How strong will the force field be? What will be needed to put a force field into protection mode? Will we need a big fleet so its not taking us days? Or can a single player with a rookie ship attack the force field and just be annying?

 

Will the owner of the force field know who attacked him and what he got attacked with?

 

Maybe let the force field owner set a time frame in which his territory will be attackable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30.01.2018 at 9:14 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.

 

Greetings.

 

I generally like this devblog. This is why i take the time to comment select bits of it in this post, expressing my personal opinion about them (and nothing more than that). Quotes from the devblog will be in bold italics.

 

 

1. We want to bring meaning and merit to all activities, even those basic ones that don’t require particular skills like mining.

 

Admirable desire. However, please note that process of mining ores in real life on industrial scale - is highly sophisticated process which requires many skills. Similarly complex mining activities can be simulated in a game, and indeed sometimes were simulated in a few games, already (either intentionally or not).

 

For example: mining in Ultima Online looks very boring and basic on the surface, however, there is a script language which allows to create relatively sophisticated mining scripts, which control one's character and mine ores without direct player control. Said scripts, with certain modifications, allow for rudimentary adaptations: the script reacts to certain events while running, and possibly adjusts behaviour of the character to produce more desirable result in the end. Such scripts were done by me over 15 years ago, and i imagine nowadays much more complex and challenging ways to do mining can be made, if so desired.

 

I conclude that there are no "basic" activities. There are only basic implementations of specific systems which allow to have "basic" in-game activities, which some players decide to get involved with (and/or are forced to use, circa "grinding"). Pretty much everything can be made into mini-game, or even fully developed "game inside a game", if need be.

 

 

2. We are also aware that even very dedicated fans can’t be connected at all times, and we expect many players to have a busy family and/or working life. With this in mind, we think it’s necessary that whether outside of safe zones or if players like risks and challenges, they need to have adequate time to react should their assets be attacked while offline.

 

Said "adequate time" is not a solution, because often times attackers will use overwhelming force. This is seen time and time again in all games which allow to do so: raids often happen in a way defender(s) are unable to defend their assets even if they are fully aware of the raid, because of sheer numbers and/or strength of the attacking force.

 

For example: in Ogame (browser MMO about colonizing planets in space), most attacks are only performed if the attacker is sure his force will utterly crush defender's fleet present near attacked planet. Even more, experienced players only attack if they are sure that the defender can not throw in massive additional forces to defend at very last few seconds before the battle, such as when defender's planet has a moon from which additional large fleet can be sent to defend the planet in almost no time.

 

So, if the goal is to allow players to ensure safety of their assets (whether all assets, or particular kinds of assets only) - then it will be simply required to give players strictly secure space, to which assets can be put and remain 100% safe. Good examples of such spaces are: player's stash in Diablo 2; personal notes about players kept in friends' list of SWTOR (assuming information in those notes can be considered "assets"); player's ship(s) in Discovery Freelancer (not including items in ships' cargo holds in the event of ship descrution, of course); player's and guild's bank space in WoW; etc.

 

One important note that it is best when players have rich options which define who, how and when can see / interact with their assets. Whenever such options are present, players are very happy about it. Using above mentioned examples, i know that player's stash in Diablo 2 did not have any such options, and players were often irritated by their inability to allow access to it to their friends; one's ability to keep notes in SWTOR - and also one's ability to select whether to allow anyone else into their personal stronghold(s) - were always enjoyed by players very much; same for various settings of player-made space stations in Discovery Freelancer; same for guild bank's settings in WoW.

 

 

3. It’s a no-brainer that many players yearn for “home sweet home” in a safe zone where they can relax.

 

It is. This is very required for any good MMO, especially next-gen MMO, which DU aims to be.

 

But required does not mean sufficient. Most players also yearn for neutral grounds, as well. Places where all hostilities are both prohibited, and if attempted - quickly stopped by overwhelming force. This concept was already implemented even back in Ultima Online, where guards were mercilessly overpowering any player who tried to do harm within city limits. Neutral cities in WoW where two opposed factions can walk together without bloodshed, Zoners' space stations in Freelancer which allow everyone to dock and enforce peace no matter what, etc. Such places, where everyone can be sure to be accepted and protected (or nearly everyone, except known criminals for example) - need to exist in number and locations sufficient to provide refuge, if need be, on sufficiently short notice.

 

The key difference here is that "home sweet home" is primarily needed for personal space - while neutral "grounds" (cities, halls, stations, etc) are primarily needed for social interactions. So, both allow to "relax", yet both provide more functions than just "can relax here" one. Therefore, both "home" and "neutral cities" are designed very differently in many regards, in order to allow those other functions to be used. Players' and organisations' "homes" typically have tools and systems allowing to store and manage assets, decorate, sometimes crafting benefits, resting places, etc. One can call all such "conviniences". While neutral cities / stations / grounds typically have great many guest givers, NPC shops and services, sometimes transportation hubs, large gathering spaces, etc. One can call all such "points of interest", i guess.

 

It does not always mean the game needs many such places. If the game can provide quick method to travel to such place(s), then even few can suffice. But without fancy things like portals and instant-jump drives able to propel one any distance desired to such place, the game may need procedural ways to generate such spaces in sufficient number, distributed somewhat evenly throughout the game's overall space. They must not be too rare, but neither too common, as it's best to have players able to reach one in sufficiently small amount of time, but also often challenged to reach one despite immediate dangers. Personally, i estimate the ideal "reach safety" time being some ~5...15 minutes (whenever the player does not have any option to "portal" to safety and such nearly instantly, that is), depending on particular gameplay and situation. I mean the time required to reach safety when the player is attempting it as his current primary task, of course. I observe this is indeed the case in most popular games which involve any sort of neutral grounds, including ones mentioned above in this post.

 

I conclude that "home" and "neutral grounds" locations - differ very much in both function and design, if we talk what MMO players yearn for. It's much important to have both, and have both implementing above mentioned functionalities properly (on top of both giving protection to players, of course).

 

But, of course, this all is "standard" by now. If DU aims to be truly next-gen MMO, then perhaps more careful consideration along those lines is needed. Perhaps yet another kind(s) of specific "grounds" is something most players would enjoy extremely much, if implemented right? What such "grounds" may be, and why? Those are questions i don't have clear answers for.

 

 

4. For the time being we are considering the following option, but we would like to hear your opinons: If the Force Field drops below a certain level, it will activate a temporary Protection Bubble making the Force Field Unit itself (and the construct on which it has been placed) indestructible for 24-48 hours.

 

I know developers intend only good with this, but i am sure lots of bad will come of such a design in practice. Sorry to disappoint, but this comes from large Ogame experience.

 

You see, in Ogame, players spend months, sometimes years, to amass great fleets. Other players hunt such fleets, for any substantial defeated fleet produce great amount of valuable matherials. This is "bigger fish eats smaller fish" kind of game. Point is, in Ogame, you can't strike instantly, - it takes hours or sometimes real-life days for your fleet to travel to someone else's planet and attack their fleet, and as soon as you send your fleet to do that attack - the attacked person gets notified he's about to be attacked. He knows exactly when the attacking fleet will arrive.

 

So where's problem about that, you ask? The need to regularly check what's going on, that's the problem. In practice, it gets old real soon. When players feel they "must" check how things are going in their game regularly, it makes them feel as if it's not a game - but instead, a kind of a job. They often won't realize it themselves, but subconsiously, any such game will repel them. Worst thing about it: the more important for the person it is to ensure regular involvement with the game - the more he'd be repelled by it.

 

So ask yourself: what happens if someone say goes to vacation? Or someone who got tough times at his job and must spend several days away from the game? School exams imminent? Sickness / hospital? Etc etc. In all such cases, players will know their assets are to remain unprotected. It won't make them happy.

 

On the opposite, players in say WoW - they _know_ that no matter what, contents of their bank account is there to stay, as is equipment on their characters, etc. Heck, i logged into WoW last year (iirc) after being away from it for several years - and everything was securely there, heck, even looks of my old character in black and red armors was very same to how i remember it being years ago.

 

The solution is clear here, to me. Do not go the Ogame way. Allow players to ensure safety of all assets if they want to do so. Without any extra price tag nor excessive extra effort needed. In doing so, the game will earn more than players' gratitude: the game with attract many more players than it otherwise would.

 

 

P.S. I wish developers best or luck designing the game - without hurry, without setting any release dates, and having great enjoyment in the developing process itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As reference, I love the idea of having to fuel territory/protection units.

 

However being able to choose a time-frame when your shield goes down and you can be attacked seems like a poor choice. Its supposed to serve as an early warning, not allow you to manipulate the battle to your advantage. The attacker should always have the choice of when to attack outside protection. If you don't like it, there is multiple org's that offer protection services that you could likely hire on an "as needed" basis.

Share this post


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

 

But required does not mean sufficient. Most players also yearn for neutral grounds

See below

32 minutes ago, Fins_T said:

 

Admirable desire. However, please note that process of mining ores in real life on industrial scale - is highly sophisticated process which requires many skills. Similarly complex mining activities can be simulated in a game, and indeed sometimes were simulated in a few games, already (either intentionally or not).

Since they said from the beginning that they want Du to be "easy to pick Up, hard to master" I'm sure they only meant the task of mining itself (point and click) isn't hard. Unlike building for example.

 

32 minutes ago, Fins_T said:

Said "adequate time" is not a solution, because often times attackers will use overwhelming force. This is seen time and time again in all games which allow to do so: raids often happen in a way defender(s) are unable to defend their assets even if they are fully aware of the raid, because of sheer numbers and/or strength of the attacking force.

 

For example: in Ogame (browser MMO about colonizing planets in space), most attacks are only performed if the attacker is sure his force will utterly crush defender's fleet present near attacked planet. Even more, experienced players only attack if they are sure that the defender can not throw in massive additional forces to defend at very last few seconds before the battle, such as when defender's planet has a moon from which additional large fleet can be sent to defend the planet in almost no time.

 

So, if the goal is to allow players to ensure safety of their assets (whether all assets, or particular kinds of assets only) - then it will be simply required to give players strictly secure space, to which assets can be put and remain 100% safe. Good examples of such spaces are: player's stash in Diablo 2; personal notes about players kept in friends' list of SWTOR (assuming information in those notes can be considered "assets"); player's ship(s) in Discovery Freelancer (not including items in ships' cargo holds in the event of ship descrution, of course); player's and guild's bank space in WoW; etc.

That's why there ARE 100% Safe zones where players ARE 100% Safe and it doesn't matter of they're ill or on vacation.

 

Those shields give players who live in unsafe zones time to react which is needed

 

On a sidenote: ogame might not be the best comparison here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most valuable resources can't be gathered in 100% safe zones, i hear. I imagine players who took the risks of going to unsafe zones and collected such valuable resources, and later on used such resources to build something which can be destroyed - would not be happy about such destruction happening. Developers understood that and considered that "force field" mechanic, allowing 24...48 hours of prior warning. I said it's the wrong way to protect such assets, and explained why i think so.

 

Again, it was just my opinion. You are welcome to have different one. Thanks.

Share this post


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

Most valuable resources can't be gathered in 100% safe zones, i hear. I imagine players who took the risks of going to unsafe zones and collected such valuable resources, and later on used such resources to build something which can be destroyed - would not be happy about such destruction happening. Developers understood that and considered that "force field" mechanic, allowing 24...48 hours of prior warning. I said it's the wrong way to protect such assets, and explained why i think so.

 

Again, it was just my opinion. You are welcome to have different one. Thanks.

Information is never lost, as you have blueprints and snapshots.

 

And again: the Player can build His construct in the safe zone and park it in the Safe zone so it doesn't get destroyed. And only use it in that safezone..... Risk vs reward

 

The point of Du is emergent gameplay. Your stuff can be destroyed when you Go outside the safezones. That's the vision. 

Share this post


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

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.

Did you forgot the ASA zone and MSA too ? PvP is not allow there so you can build what ever you want there without the fear that your work will be destroy. It just that resource will be not high one, just common because this will create Risk and Reward system for player.

 

2 hours ago, Legolad said:

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?

Hmm because DU is "Rebuild Civilization together" so there will be some Org create City and other thing like space station. Those activity will be host by the ORg it self.

 

3 hours ago, Legolad said:

Hmmmm. Well, I guess this just isn't the game for me. 

Well if you want a PURE BUILDING GAME like minecraft without conflict... well sure this game is not for you. But i do hope you will stay after the game official release. Just as i say the game have the no PvP or Offensive action zone already , it will create a place for you.

 

Share this post


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

Information is never lost, as you have blueprints and snapshots.

 

And again: the Player can build His construct in the safe zone and park it in the Safe zone so it doesn't get destroyed. And only use it in that safezone..... Risk vs reward

 

The point of Du is emergent gameplay. Your stuff can be destroyed when you Go outside the safezones. That's the vision. 

Part of the emergent gameplay, to me, is players changing their objectives. Today, he went outside the safezone and built great something - ok, something emerged alright. Tomorrow, some clan came in and razed the thing to ashes - ok, something more emerged. The player knew the risks and accepts the loss - ok, so far so good. He uses the snapshot and rebuilds the thing.

 

A week passes. Another clan comes in, but this time, let's say, he had that "field" devblog proposed, he noticed the warning in time, assembled friends, and they managed to defend the thing. Good battle, great fun, lots of emerged gameplay. So far so good.

 

A month passes. The player decided he enjoyed said emerged gameplay, all good and fancy, but for now he wishes his great thing in an unsafe zone to become entirely safe now. I say, he should have a way to make it happen - without spending any much to have it happen, that is. No rare resources spent to re-build the thing in a safe zone. Also, location may matter - a great thing in one place may look epic, but in some other place it may not. I say, instead of that field (for reasons i explained above), - allow players to "flag" (mark) their asset as indestructible.

 

How it'd work - is open for debate. Maybe it would require substantial period of time between marking done and actual indestructibility start. Maybe it'd limit certain kinds of interaction with the thing for other players - on top of their inability to blow it up, i mean. Maybe it'd change any gameplay functions of constructed asset. Maybe it'd cost certain amount of in-game currency to do it, possibly varying based on the nature of the asset. Maybe combination of such things, too.

 

And i think it'd help emerged gameplay if some things players construct in unsafe zones would remain there for "ever since", too. Even abandoned, such things would remain the history of the game, monuments for players-of-the-past effort and creativity, "relics" if you want. Proposed force field does nothing, in the long run, against players who prefer destruction. Those are relatively few, but over time, are usually quite successful in razing down everything they can - unless the game itself makes sure they can't do so.

Share this post


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

Admirable desire. However, please note that process of mining ores in real life on industrial scale - is highly sophisticated process which requires many skills. Similarly complex mining activities can be simulated in a game, and indeed sometimes were simulated in a few games, already (either intentionally or not).

 

For example: mining in Ultima Online looks very boring and basic on the surface, however, there is a script language which allows to create relatively sophisticated mining scripts, which control one's character and mine ores without direct player control. Said scripts, with certain modifications, allow for rudimentary adaptations: the script reacts to certain events while running, and possibly adjusts behaviour of the character to produce more desirable result in the end. Such scripts were done by me over 15 years ago, and i imagine nowadays much more complex and challenging ways to do mining can be made, if so desired.

 

I conclude that there are no "basic" activities. There are only basic implementations of specific systems which allow to have "basic" in-game activities, which some players decide to get involved with (and/or are forced to use, circa "grinding"). Pretty much everything can be made into mini-game, or even fully developed "game inside a game", if need be.

Mining still boring but it is truly BASIC thing in DU. Why basic ... Because it is easy to do , just your hand, your mouse and LMB tada you are mining now. Also we all know well that, basic is the foundation for all other advanced thing. Well you can be good by the time when you train skill and make you good at becoming a miner.


And well i dont even want to see the control with out direct control from player. Just like automation and this might be see as third program lmao.

1 hour ago, Fins_T said:

Said "adequate time" is not a solution, because often times attackers will use overwhelming force. This is seen time and time again in all games which allow to do so: raids often happen in a way defender(s) are unable to defend their assets even if they are fully aware of the raid, because of sheer numbers and/or strength of the attacking force.

Only attack when you think you can win - This idea have everywhere from long time ago and still now. The "adequate time" is use for prepare and make it "a bit fair" for player. It is true that no players want to wake up or come home after work to see you base/property have gone because they raid your base while you offline, it give people RAGE and quit the game because it unfair for them. IF player be beaten when they are fully armed and ready it will give them less rage than because they know that their enemy beat them and how they beat , they will acknowledge their defeat because enemy is better than them.

1 hour ago, Fins_T said:

which assets can be put and remain 100% safe

You have to do it yourself. Or you can create a safe and hide it in ASA zone where you dont worry about someone take it. Or someone might create a bank for safekeeping  or similar thing  so you can give your stuff there ( and hope that bank not get rob ).

1 hour ago, Fins_T said:

One important note that it is best when players have rich options which define who, how and when can see / interact with their assets.

we got RDMS (Right & Duty Management System ) already, it will give they the right and also the duty.  RDMS

 

1 hour ago, Fins_T said:

So where's problem about that, you ask? The need to regularly check what's going on, that's the problem. In practice, it gets old real soon. When players feel they "must" check how things are going in their game regularly, it makes them feel as if it's not a game - but instead, a kind of a job. They often won't realize it themselves, but subconsiously, any such game will repel them. Worst thing about it: the more important for the person it is to ensure regular involvement with the game - the more he'd be repelled by it.

Why i have to check what happen when they said that there will be a system that inform you via email or maybe API too when you got attack by enemy.

 

1 hour ago, Fins_T said:

So ask yourself: what happens if someone say goes to vacation? Or someone who got tough times at his job and must spend several days away from the game? School exams imminent? Sickness / hospital? Etc etc. In all such cases, players will know their assets are to remain unprotected. It won't make them happy.

Well you know that normal (solo person ) cant got a TU (territory unit ) right ? NQ have said that it will COST too much for one man can get it and def it ( unless you buy it will RL money of course )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fins_T That's the point though. If a player wants to create something that lasts He can (and should) build it in a safe zone. 

UA and shields are for players who want to live in dangerous zones where everything changes constantly.

 

If you could turn any tile indestructible (No matter how Long that takes) then people will do that. And suddenly you have a pirate base in the middle of your city, near your mining outpost or your Home.....and you can't do anything about it. That's just Bad for the game and people will leave.

 

Better to have safezones where people can do whatever and build in peace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Novark Citizen: You can always do something about it. At very least - move out, start somewhere else. The issue you're talking about is different, though. Not the issue of safety of assets - but the issue of players trolling other players. It is true this always happens, and happens alot, if there are no means to prevent it. But it is also true that means to prevent it usually also prevent any emerged gameplay.

 

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.

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...