Jump to content
NQ-Nyzaltar

[DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hades said:

Something tells me claiming a territory will NOT require time, or perhaps a shorter time

I really hope not, because it is totally abuse.

 

Org A balance between save up for a TU and construct their home, building, army  ... and another org B which full speed for a TU then go to the area where  org A building their home and claim it right immediately then use assets from org A base ( the first org ) to against/attack org A. 

Share this post


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

I really hope not, because it is totally abuse.

 

Org A balance between save up for a TU and construct their home, building, army  ... and another org B which full speed for a TU then go to the area where  org A building their home and claim it right immediately then use assets from org A base ( the first org ) to against/attack org A. 

That’s not abuse imho, that’s a lack of defending what you’ve worked for.

Share this post


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

That’s not abuse imho, that’s a lack of defending what you’ve worked for.

So tell me how it is not abuse.

Share this post


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

So tell me how it is not abuse.

Ooohhh, I’m sorry.  I read your comment incorrectly, you’re saying there should be a timer before the claim goes into EFFECT.  Not someone taking over a claim.

 

Yeah, I agree.  All constructs within the claim shouldn’t automatically go to the claim owner.  There needs to be something in place to allow the actual construct owners to move their constructs.  Or dismantle into as much resources as they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hades said:

All constructs within the claim shouldn’t automatically go to the claim owner

Umu there will be much happy if that happen but it will decrease the freedom of the game. Like i say if you build a home, where some guy have already build something but they have abandon it. Now you claim the area but the building still the old owner and you cant do thing.

So i suggest all thing in area which claim by TU will automatic follow the RDMS of TU. What i just say there should take some time to claim before RDMS put into active, help the people who have home on the area but not yet have a TU to do something about it. Flee or Attacking is their choice but atleast they have the fair chance to do something :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, on a timer.  You have x amount of time to move or dismantle your construct/building on the claim before the new owner of the claim can take it as their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a vital component in the talk of taking over TUs / land that should be included to create more realism conflict and opportunites. I popose the following:

 

Shield is attacked and goes down after x time. This explodes the TU. The land goes into free for all mode for 7 days though access rights on building's stay as is.

 

In that 7 days ground warfare takes place. Flee defend attack,  give up, destroy, dismantle etc.

 

After that 7 days Anyone can place another TU.

 

This will provide for greater gameplay and options. Will also allow for inside structure defence/destruction.

 

It could also mean the defending side can once again control the land if the intent of the attacker was just to blow shit up for fun.

 

Cheers

 

Core

Share this post


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

Unfortunately, I have a feeling people will take out the shield and just wait for that 7th day.

Isn't the optimal strategy at that point: drop the shield, go elsewhere for 6 and a bit days, come back, smash your way through whatever conflicts there are to a pre-scouted hiding spot, and start spamming your TU as the timer runs out?

I mean, what's the point in fighting a ground war for a week if it makes no difference on the claim? I'd also worry about bot-claims if it was a simple timer.

Share this post


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

Isn't the optimal strategy at that point: drop the shield, go elsewhere for 6 and a bit days, come back, smash your way through whatever conflicts there are to a pre-scouted hiding spot, and start spamming your TU as the timer runs out?

I mean, what's the point in fighting a ground war for a week if it makes no difference on the claim? I'd also worry about bot-claims if it was a simple timer.

Precisely.  I don’t think a timer on laying a TU down is necessary, however, I do think there should be a duration before a shield can go up.  For example, Group A takes over Group Bs area, they lay down a claim and shield.  The shield won’t go online for x amount of time. That way Group B can regroup and try and take it back.

 

However, I think x should be hours not days.  If there was a shield on the claim before it was taken, they had 2 days to prepare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Razorwire said:

Isn't the optimal strategy at that point: drop the shield, go elsewhere for 6 and a bit days, come back, smash your way through whatever conflicts there are to a pre-scouted hiding spot, and start spamming your TU as the timer runs out?

I mean, what's the point in fighting a ground war for a week if it makes no difference on the claim? I'd also worry about bot-claims if it was a simple timer.

U might have to get accsess to the centre of the territory to place the new TU. That could be behind many fortifications etc. (Im assuming TUs need to be at ground level or lower).

 

Hence 7 days os skirmishes

Share this post


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

U might have to get accsess to the centre of the territory to place the new TU. That could be behind many fortifications etc. (Im assuming TUs need to be at ground level or lower).

Disagree. I would like to have terrain advantage when building a fortress to keep my TU safe. Imagine you have to put your TU at the center of territory and surround is mountain where they can shot from high land to you. 

I think you might say let edit terrain but what if it too big ? You cant edit the whole mountain in a day, a week , a month ?

 

13 hours ago, Hades said:

I don’t think a timer on laying a TU down is necessary

Well if it is WAR so laying TU with timer not necessary but what i say here is claim where dont have war. Where people go sleep and after a night to wake up and know that your home have been claim and follow the RDMS and you cant do a thing to against it. Make me well like to rage quit. 

Share this post


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

Disagree. I would like to have terrain advantage when building a fortress to keep my TU safe. Imagine you have to put your TU at the center of territory and surround is mountain where they can shot from high land to you. 

I think you might say let edit terrain but what if it too big ? You cant edit the whole mountain in a day, a week , a month ?

 

Well if it is WAR so laying TU with timer not necessary but what i say here is claim where dont have war. Where people go sleep and after a night to wake up and know that your home have been claim and follow the RDMS and you cant do a thing to against it. Make me well like to rage quit. 

I dont know how TU placement currently works but my idea is to destroy current tu before new one can be placed. This ends up a bit like a capture the flag type situation and could draw out to be multiple days of gameplay itself.

Share this post


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

U might have to get accsess to the centre of the territory to place the new TU. That could be behind many fortifications etc. (Im assuming TUs need to be at ground level or lower).

 

Hence 7 days os skirmishes

47 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:

I dont know how TU placement currently works but my idea is to destroy current tu before new one can be placed. This ends up a bit like a capture the flag type situation and could draw out to be multiple days of gameplay itself.

Still don't see it.
If me and mine can't take it in one battle, then the extra 6 days are likely worthless; if I threw everything at it, I have no reserves, and if I kept reserves wouldn't they have helped in the first push?

And if I *can* take it on day one, I can wait and take it on day 6 to reduce the opportunity for reprisals.

You want a proper ground war? You need to have layers of shielding that defenders can reinforce and attackers can knock down, turn it into a tug-of-war mechanic with a delay timer between each stage. And you need to provide defence vs air assault from either side. Anything less could be brute-forced or ninja'd.
This would give you your week's worth of ground fighting, but at the expense of making it really hard to take territory without a huge effort, and more than a little game-y.

 

I rather like the idea that if I'm clever, or part of a strong Org, I can take a territory fairly quickly. Lot of folk won't have the time in RL to commit to a multi-day assault.

Share this post


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

Still don't see it.
If me and mine can't take it in one battle, then the extra 6 days are likely worthless; if I threw everything at it, I have no reserves, and if I kept reserves wouldn't they have helped in the first push?

And if I *can* take it on day one, I can wait and take it on day 6 to reduce the opportunity for reprisals.

You want a proper ground war? You need to have layers of shielding that defenders can reinforce and attackers can knock down, turn it into a tug-of-war mechanic with a delay timer between each stage. And you need to provide defence vs air assault from either side. Anything less could be brute-forced or ninja'd.
This would give you your week's worth of ground fighting, but at the expense of making it really hard to take territory without a huge effort, and more than a little game-y.

 

I rather like the idea that if I'm clever, or part of a strong Org, I can take a territory fairly quickly. Lot of folk won't have the time in RL to commit to a multi-day assault.

The layers u speak of will be the buildings/tunnels/armour/shields around the Tu. Remember the tu could be hundreds of meters underground. You say your team could take a teritory in one day.... how will u know? It might take several days... maybe weeks depending on how fortified the tu is. For example how long does it take to blast through a locked armored door? Etc.

 

(And how many people are defending it).

 

So not gamey at all. Its totally realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ps taking teritory in a ground war is VERY hard. sure you  can blow things up from the air but thats  totally different to taking and holding ground - which is the whole point of land based invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War for territory will end in day one day two ... of course it can happen if your org or your side is very good or overwhelm power or surprise attack. But war game not that easy if it is ... it will turn out boring soon. The feeling when you have to choose which action to take, which way to go, which will cost less but high performance ;)

Share this post


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

War for territory will end in day one day two ... of course it can happen if your org or your side is very good or overwhelm power or surprise attack. But war game not that easy if it is ... it will turn out boring soon. The feeling when you have to choose which action to take, which way to go, which will cost less but high performance ;)

People want assett protection. Why should taking ground be as simple as destroying a ship..... it shouldnt be.

 

This also seperates the opportunistic griefer who doesnt care to actually take/hold territory from the org that is concoring teritory for tactical gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say right @CoreVamore . War for territory shouldnt be that simple.

 

4 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:

as simple as destroying a ship

If can i would rather take control a ship if it give me profit and worth for taking it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll try again.

I was offering counter-points to an artificial 7 day timer between knocking out a TU and being able to place a new one, if it's merely to stimulate a ground war. I don't think you need to, I think it'll happen anyway if both sides are prepared.


It should take as long as it takes to take the ground. If one side is throwing heavy resources at the fight or is very clever about it and the other isn't, or if one side doesn't even show up, it should be over very quickly one way or the other.

Remember that a TU is likely not the same as an area protection device; say knocking down the shield sets off a siege timer to give the owner time to respond, the TU is still inside the siege-shield. It'll all be settled only once both sides have been given time to muster, and that's when your war starts, mixed forces and complex ground defences and all. And *that* bit should take as long as it takes.

 

I guess all I'm saying is that I don't want to knock down a shield, wait the 24hr (or whatever) siege-timer out, flatten the defences, kill all the defenders and destroy their spawn-room, blow up their TU and then *still* have to wait a long arbitrary time before I can drop my own TU. Nor do I want to destroy a TU only to have a hidden defender on the other side of the hex instantly drop another one.

I'd go for a 5 min timer before you can place a TU on a territory that has recently lost one, and a 15 min timer on placing a TU where *you* have recently lost one. Gives both sides some reaction time and prevents ninja TU replacement.

 

We'll see what we get, and we'll poke it until it breaks and they fix it. Then we'll poke it again.

 

And don't worry about opportunist griefers, Devs have said that TUs are going to be expensive, and that there will be some kind of offline protection; greifers won't likely spend all that cash on a TU in the first place, and if they do, you'll get warning and time to react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2018 at 8:57 PM, Razorwire said:

Ok, I'll try again.

I was offering counter-points to an artificial 7 day timer between knocking out a TU and being able to place a new one, if it's merely to stimulate a ground war. I don't think you need to, I think it'll happen anyway if both sides are prepared.


It should take as long as it takes to take the ground. If one side is throwing heavy resources at the fight or is very clever about it and the other isn't, or if one side doesn't even show up, it should be over very quickly one way or the other.

Remember that a TU is likely not the same as an area protection device; say knocking down the shield sets off a siege timer to give the owner time to respond, the TU is still inside the siege-shield. It'll all be settled only once both sides have been given time to muster, and that's when your war starts, mixed forces and complex ground defences and all. And *that* bit should take as long as it takes.

 

I guess all I'm saying is that I don't want to knock down a shield, wait the 24hr (or whatever) siege-timer out, flatten the defences, kill all the defenders and destroy their spawn-room, blow up their TU and then *still* have to wait a long arbitrary time before I can drop my own TU. Nor do I want to destroy a TU only to have a hidden defender on the other side of the hex instantly drop another one.

I'd go for a 5 min timer before you can place a TU on a territory that has recently lost one, and a 15 min timer on placing a TU where *you* have recently lost one. Gives both sides some reaction time and prevents ninja TU replacement.

 

We'll see what we get, and we'll poke it until it breaks and they fix it. Then we'll poke it again.

 

And don't worry about opportunist griefers, Devs have said that TUs are going to be expensive, and that there will be some kind of offline protection; greifers won't likely spend all that cash on a TU in the first place, and if they do, you'll get warning and time to react.

Im fine with this.

 

My main point/desire was to have a ground battle occur, not just "Take down shield - don something easy - gain the territory". So we are both on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Novaquark has mentioned before that they would like to encourage cities. Why not solve two problems with one system.

 

An example system

  1. Safe zone territory markers take a large amount of resources (medium to large organization), and are not impervious to damage but very VERY hard to kill (weeks of sustained successful attacking)
  2. Once constructed, a safe zone territory marker would be surrounded by 6 frontier hex tiles. Frontier hex tiles have some protection (one day of sustained attacking) and are automatically reconstructed by the safe zone territory marker after a week of being destroyed.
  3. Frontier markers can be purchased by individual players as a large expense, or several per week by a medium organization.
  4. Once a frontier marker is surrounded by other frontier markers(or above) it becomes a suburban marker with more protection than a frontier marker.
  5. Once a suburban marker is surrounded by suburban (or above) it becomes an urban marker with nearly as much protection as the safe zone marker.
  6. Once an urban marker is surrounded by urban markers (or above) it becomes a metropolis marker with the same protection as a safe zone marker.
  7. Once a safe zone marker is fully surrounded by metropolis markers, it is truly invincible.

In such a system you could add, remove, and adjust levels of zones to fit balance. It would also make incentives for city building, and giving organizations control over ordinances etc (pay your taxes) would add some depth to organizations. It also makes sense thematically (frontier more dangerous than interior). It's also (vaguely) similar to how cities actually get built.

 

 

The Imgur Link https://imgur.com/a/WfhX5 is an example of a city built using such principles.

 

Dark blue is city safe zone

Light blue is metropolis

Dark Green is urban

Light Green is suburban

Light Orange is frontier


 

Another possibility is that zones must get downgraded and the only outright destroyable zones are "Frontier" zones, so that attackers can either choose to pick at the fringes of a city (small pirates, thieves etc) or strike towards the heart of the city on longer campaigns (war, inter corporation fighting etc)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DoxieDoc said:

Safe zone territory markers take a large amount of resources (medium to large organization), and are not impervious to damage but very VERY hard to kill (weeks of sustained successful attacking)

It have been confirmed to be hard to get/create ( massive amount of resource so solo/small group cant gather to get enough material ). But i dont think the idea hard to kill is balance, read again you will see that there will be a "shield" to against enemy fire, but once shield is weak to some point or gonna to break, a protect bubble online and will go down after a certain time so 2 side can prepare and fight with all they got.

 

 

8 hours ago, DoxieDoc said:

Once constructed, a safe zone territory marker would be surrounded by 6 frontier hex tiles. Frontier hex tiles have some protection (one day of sustained attacking) and are automatically reconstructed by the safe zone territory marker after a week of being destroyed.

Well you know only safe zone got no aggressive action ?  So if build a city the owner have to protect and enforce the law themselves. Like you can put the law no weapon in city or some area and you have to go pass check point each time.

Also i dont understand the "Frontier hex tiles have some protection (one day of sustained attacking) and are automatically reconstructed by the safe zone territory marker after a week of being destroyed" Why we have to automatic reconstruct it ? Remember this game have limited automation and reconstruct i think wont be one of them

 

8 hours ago, DoxieDoc said:

Frontier markers can be purchased by individual players as a large expense, or several per week by a medium organization.

And again you forget this is "player - driver" game right ? So apart from DAC, i dont see a limit why need put. But from your image you show me frontier marker like a border to expand the city and it cheap ... i think it will broke the game so much. Image the ability you make hundred of it with so cheap and no restrict or disadvantage ... nope.

Frontier marker idea have been discuss in this forum not so long ago, you can find it. You should know that there should be a balance between advantage and disadvantage (risk ) so it will not break the game.

 

8 hours ago, DoxieDoc said:

Once a safe zone marker is fully surrounded by metropolis markers, it is truly invincible.

Well sorry but i dont have time for the above idea of this, because it will break the game for sure like this one. All thing in DU should be protection by the player themselve not mechanic. Not everything is perfect safe (well i say the thing outside of safezone ) so if a title that is invincible or the advantage of it far more than it disadvantage it will break the balance of the game. Dont wrong me, i love to see city in DU but DU is not "city simulation" game, it is a MMO Sandbox.

 

8 hours ago, DoxieDoc said:

Another possibility is that zones must get downgraded and the only outright destroyable zones are "Frontier" zones, so that attackers can either choose to pick at the fringes of a city (small pirates, thieves etc) or strike towards the heart of the city on longer campaigns (war, inter corporation fighting etc)

This is why i say it will BREAK the game. Nobody want a longer war when you can get a faster war. If you say i destroy or hack the main Territory Claim and all other will be either destroy or will be claim by another, it will more balance than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DoxieDoc said:

In such a system you could add, remove, and adjust levels of zones to fit balance. It would also make incentives for city building, and giving organizations control over ordinances etc (pay your taxes) would add some depth to organizations. It also makes sense thematically (frontier more dangerous than interior). It's also (vaguely) similar to how cities actually get built.

 

The Imgur Link https://imgur.com/a/WfhX5 is an example of a city built using such principles.

 

Dark blue is city safe zone

Light blue is metropolis

Dark Green is urban

Light Green is suburban

Light Orange is frontier

 

Urban planning is really interesting and the general question you're asking here, which is a good one, is:-

 

Q: "How can NQ SIMULATE such Urban Planning in DU via either game design (devs) and/or game play (players) so such principles "emerge" in the game?"

 

iirc, the devs did mention they want to see cities emerge as opposed to underground Nuclear Winter Mega-Bunkers due to protection from above. It's a fluid area atm and won't settle until we see more in-game play from players for the devs to adjust their game design around I'd guess.

 

Well, for starters, we could assume at some point in the game via "hook or crook" we do get safe zones for building according to centralized planning? In that case, when that happens, we could just "borrow from the real world": Here's a document on zoning regulations used in Japan:-

 

http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000234477.pdf

 

Knock yourself out. Someone, somewhere is going to be an architectural GENIUS in DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't solely have to look at "static" documents, on another note. 

 

I hear various players here have some professional background or relation to city planning and comparable areas of expertise. 

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...