Jump to content
NQ-Nyzaltar

[DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics

Recommended Posts

I appreciate that it is about getting a balance, but it is also hoped that there will be emergence and a constant battle of getting the upper hand is thus likely.

I guess a lot depends on how capable ships are of repairing without a base, for example, or how much a base can be important as a marketplace to non-owner groups as well. It will be tricky, but I think devs should definitely make energy banks possible to keep shields pretty good for a while. I would maybe want multiple timer layers to keep battles longer rather than shorter, but a lot depends on resurrection nodes, travel times and fuel costs in weighing up the advantages of both having and wanting to destroy bases as the universe settlement develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dualism said:

I appreciate that it is about getting a balance, but it is also hoped that there will be emergence and a constant battle of getting the upper hand is thus likely.

I guess a lot depends on how capable ships are of repairing without a base, for example, or how much a base can be important as a marketplace to non-owner groups as well. It will be tricky, but I think devs should definitely make energy banks possible to keep shields pretty good for a while. I would maybe want multiple timer layers to keep battles longer rather than shorter, but a lot depends on resurrection nodes, travel times and fuel costs in weighing up the advantages of both having and wanting to destroy bases as the universe settlement develops.

I'd expect bases to be challenging to attack.

 

I'd expect spaceship battles to be based around numbers and size of ships involved thus correlated with number of players ie number of ships and crew size of larger ships. I'd not expect ships to be as durable as bases at all.

Share this post


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

I'd not expect ships to be as durable as bases at all.

Considering that base can be few kilometres underground - for sure. I'm worried that attacking base may be almost impossible, unless outnumbering defenders 10:1 in AvA combat. It's just too easy to build entrance as shaft down, that leads attacking forces to an open platform in the middle of large open cavern. Draw-bridge prevent you from even getting to the door, while rain of lead and/or lazors blaze from small windows all around you... Nowhere to take cover, nowhere to hide, nowhere to run. No help from your mighty fleet - they can't get there, due to too narrow entrance. 

 

@Lethys - After some thoughts, I have to agree with you. Possibility to make both claimed and hidden base would be an good thing. Maybe that map already shows only hexes that player explored, and found claimed? And even if someone sneak base right under your nose, after you find out you can just turn it into dust. And I expect larger orgs to claim several tiles around their major bases anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing comes into my mind.

Everyone agree that area directly surrounding Arc will be extremely valuable. Same for area surrounding any major cities. And it would be pretty bad design, if someone could just claim it and do nothing with it, without any consequences.

Making auction for those would be also quite bad idea, as super-rich orgs could just out-bid someone poorer to grief them.

 

IMO it would be smart to make TU maintenance cost dynamic: The more TU are placed around, the more energy it burns per unit of time. Something like:

Each TU within 4 hexes increase maintenance cost by 5 minus distance (5 by default). Thus it would range from 5 for complete wilderness to 125 in the middle of huge settlement.

So if someone claimed area right next to Arc, and he's basically wasting it's potential, he at least need to pay for that with huge energy cost.

 

Idea may remain specific to Arc protected zone, as only there area is so limited and valuable, while there is no military way to conquer lands. And for sure should not apply for sanctuary zones, which are dedicated to creative/art purposes. But I'd keep it for UA

 

Alternatively it could be something directly related to distance from Arc

i.e.125 right next to it, 5 at distance 30km or more from it, proportional for in-between areas

But I find that system way less elastic and universal.

 

Numbers are just examples.

Energy for TU should never come from renewable resources (solar, wind, ect.), otherwise any maintenance cost can be avoided by increasing of initial cost, thus requiring some artificial timers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

Another thing comes into my mind.

Everyone agree that area directly surrounding Arc will be extremely valuable. Same for area surrounding any major cities. And it would be pretty bad design, if someone could just claim it and do nothing with it, without any consequences.

Making auction for those would be also quite bad idea, as super-rich orgs could just out-bid someone poorer to grief them.

 

IMO it would be smart to make TU maintenance cost dynamic: The more TU are placed around, the more energy it burns per unit of time. Something like:

Each TU within 4 hexes increase maintenance cost by 5 minus distance (5 by default). Thus it would range from 5 for complete wilderness to 125 in the middle of huge settlement.

So if someone claimed area right next to Arc, and he's basically wasting it's potential, he at least need to pay for that with huge energy cost.

 

Idea may remain specific to Arc protected zone, as only there area is so limited and valuable, while there is no military way to conquer lands. And for sure should not apply for sanctuary zones, which are dedicated to creative/art purposes. But I'd keep it for UA

 

Alternatively it could be something directly related to distance from Arc

i.e.125 right next to it, 5 at distance 30km or more from it, proportional for in-between areas

But I find that system way less elastic and universal.

 

Numbers are just examples.

Energy for TU should never come from renewable resources (solar, wind, ect.), otherwise any maintenance cost can be avoided by increasing of initial cost, thus requiring some artificial timers.

NQ is already thinking about such a system as it is obviously needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 4:06 PM, Lethys said:

An API is cool and all, but opens Du to botters as they can (and will) use data from that API to get an edge. They should take their time with such a thing and carefully consider it - it has huge advantages but also huge downsides If not done right

A properly protected API can alleviate most of this concern. No info with out authentication of some type and permissions from the person. I, as a player only allow these specific people to see information about me and those people must also have an authenticated valid account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After discussing the matter of underground bases and Anti-TU idea, I got another suggestion for area protection system:

Divide TCU function between two devices:

1. Actual TCU, that protect whole hex from unauthorised placement of NDFU or new static construct cores. It does not prevent digging. So it only prevent other players from building base on your territory.

2. Nanoformer Disabling Feld Unit (NDFU) that prevents all unauthorised usage of nanoformer (digging, building, constructing, ect.).

  • It only protects sphere with 50m radius.
  • It would be cheaper that TCU, but you'd need quite a lot of them in large base. And it eats power.
  • It should be impossible to place one NDFU within another NDFU range, even if friendly (to prevent spamming).
  • Only 1 NDFU per person can be used inside Ark safe-zone. To prevent too easy spamming.
  • It burns more energy to operate when there is a lot of other NDFUs nearby (see 3 posts up). So placing them in the middle of the city will be more expensive than somewhere in the wild. That function may be limited to Ark safe-zone, to avoid discouraging large independent cities.
  • If you're within range of two NDFU, both affects you.
  • It start working 1h after being placed.
  • You can place TCU only within range of NDFU that runs for at least 2h.

Static constructs would loose it's built-in protection from unauthorised modification, so you can capture and loot only part of enemy base.

 

Why?

A. 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.

B. It's more elastic - If you don't need whole square kilometre, you can claim just a little bit.

C. Make it impossible to night-claim someones hidden base. Or at least a lot harder, as you need to build several NDFU around it.

D. Players are less restricted by hex-grid in meta-base placement, thus more natural.

E. Makes it impossible to box newbies inside safe zone (if they have at least one active NDFU). Unless you are group of at least very dedicated griefers. It also costs you 6x more to maintain the box NDFUs than trapped newbie.

F. Make battles more gradual: You get control over base in steps (NDFU destruction). For full control you need to destroy TCU and all enemy NDFUs (to prevent him from placing new TCU) then place and defend at least one of NDFS for 1h, then place and defend your own TCU and FFU for 2h. Or simply destroy all the power sources, so all protection goes down.

G. You need to precisely localise ore vein, i you want to secure it from other players.

 

 

Besides that, there is of course FFU, which soak large amount of firepower before overloading - which leads to 24-48h pre-battle countdown.

Those should be available in various sizes (different radius and amount of firepower required to trigger overload).

IMO it should not physically block unauthorised players from entering - that totally break stealth infiltration.

Also, while blocking any unauthorised heavy weapon usage inside, IMO light weapons should still work. Automated sentry guns, e-mail warning, ect. should be an answer if intruder trigger any sensor (i.e. by shooting loud weapon, using explosive charges, ect.). If thief is skilled enough to avoid all your traps (can't really destroy them with only light weapons), then he deserve to succeed.

 

 

What do ye think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never know where to post. It fits both here ("Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics") in idea box ("Where all suggestions are stored. One idea per topic") and in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly ("Discussions and ideas about gameplay (other than Building)").

 

But I may create separate topic for it later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NQ: I noticed that the devblog colors/theme was updated recently to be more in line with the rest of the website, which means it now has a dark background instead of light. But the text was not made a light color, so now it's dark on dark. Which is, let's say, not ideal. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I really like how territory is shaping up but I have a few questions:

Is a territory unit available with in game currency, or does it require some kind of premium currency to purchase?

Second, while the Force Field Unit is active, are other players able to enter the area, and can you designate certain players that can and can't enter it if so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Queejon said:

Hey, I really like how territory is shaping up but I have a few questions:

Is a territory unit available with in game currency, or does it require some kind of premium currency to purchase?

Second, while the Force Field Unit is active, are other players able to enter the area, and can you designate certain players that can and can't enter it if so?

According to my knowledge:

1. You "just" need resources/quanta(in-game currency) to create/buy it and fuel/energy to operate.
But you also can buy in-game currency from other players for DAC (in-game item that can be bough for real money, and can be used as monthly subscription)

 

2. We don't know much about FFU. It may be physical shield that prevent entrance unless you have permission, but it may also simple prevent damage from weapons. I hope the later - physical shield feels fake af.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 6:50 PM, CalenLoki said:

According to my knowledge:

1. You "just" need resources/quanta(in-game currency) to create/buy it and fuel/energy to operate.
But you also can buy in-game currency from other players for DAC (in-game item that can be bough for real money, and can be used as monthly subscription)

 

2. We don't know much about FFU. It may be physical shield that prevent entrance unless you have permission, but it may also simple prevent damage from weapons. I hope the later - physical shield feels fake af.

I agree it would feel fake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the need for such protection varies with the actual size of the base and people having access to it for it´s defense,

i would suggest that base "protection perimeters" come in various sizes. 

 

For little homes and bases that accommodate just a handful of players, such a perimeter might aswell have applicable "emergency batteries".

These would give the one - or little group - a bit more time to respond (since there are also those that don´t spend their vacations on the computer :D - get hospitalised or have other RL reasons that prevent them access to the game). 

 

Bigger bases and/or player groups shouldn´t have this option though since the ability to respond is given due to group/base size. 

"Emergency batteries" would then have to be applied before leaving and last for maybe a week or so and should be seen by the attacking faction prior to attack. Once applied they can´t be taken out of the module again and just a maximum of let´s say 4 modules (aka one month of protection) can be hooked up. 

 

By the time active actions of the group/or the one player is taken to defend this base, the extra protection has to be dropped. 

Hmmm - A rentable player-security-service would be a thing aswell, but also opens up the option to leak the information of a unprotected base to a third party to raid the base. 

Unfortunately griefers go a long way these days to ruin a game for players by looking into loopholes in a game system.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RJ_RodassonJenkins said:

Bigger bases and/or player groups shouldn´t have this option though since the ability to respond is given due to group/base size. 

"Emergency batteries" would then have to be applied before leaving and last for maybe a week or so and should be seen by the attacking faction prior to attack. Once applied they can´t be taken out of the module again and just a maximum of let´s say 4 modules (aka one month of protection) can be hooked up. 

Ppl would just create alt orgs and give full rights via RDMS to the main group. Then you have invasion/attack forward bases which can't be attacked for a month. 

 

I assume that almost every group will have a safe haven in some safezone, to train newbros and to have one Base which can't be taken by any means to build up again If you get killed. 

To me living outside of those safezones just means that the moment i build something, I already mark it as a loss in my books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lethys said:

To me living outside of those safezones just means that the moment i build something, I already mark it as a loss in my books.

A relatively healthy way to operate or value assets, I think.

 

Of course it should not turn into a real paranoia for some, but in general, one should be aware of potential risks if assets are not in any are where hard mechanics basically protect them from outside damage.

 

Many people would refrain from having assets outside of those hard safe zones but at the same time I can see plenty of room or situations where people take risks and where many benefit from having something like potentially contested (field) bases and whatnot. Depending on how easy they would be to maintain and repair and assuming you do not put all your valuables into those, it wouldn't be a huge loss for groups to operate bases in such unclaimed, potentially un-safe areas, if you ask me.

 

And since not all want to or can stay in hard safe zones, we'll see enough infrastructure or assets in potential combat zones.

 

I think in the end, a lot depends on your personal mindset: willing to take losses or not?

Share this post


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

I think in the end, a lot depends on your personal mindset: willing to take losses or not?

That's the crux of the matter, really.

 

I can't imagine anyone spending vast amounts of time and effort on building structures in areas where there's a high risk of loss (i.e. the majority of the game world), unless they're part of a large org with considerable military power.

 

Some will inevitably risk it, but it remains to be seen how they'll react to the loss of all their resources. The design is never lost, because you always have a "personal snapshot" of your structures, you just have to supply the resources to rebuild it. That means the loss is in terms of time and money.

 

I'd imagine most elaborate structures will be built first in the safezones, then blueprinted and built from BPC's in the high-risk areas, but the cost of building (resources needed) will always be a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Force Field Unit is a temporary name. What do you think it should be?).  I think a good name could be Magnetic Coil, which creates a Electromagnetic Field around it which deflects energy weapons and cinetic based one. Also is a good notice that I would be able to progress in my first minutes playing whithout worring about PKers and Pirates. For sure that there will be recruitment zones made by Organizations in order to recruit newbies and introduce them in the game among them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Elobomg said:

(Force Field Unit is a temporary name. What do you think it should be?).  I think a good name could be Magnetic Coil, which creates a Electromagnetic Field around it which deflects energy weapons and cinetic based one. Also is a good notice that I would be able to progress in my first minutes playing whithout worring about PKers and Pirates. For sure that there will be recruitment zones made by Organizations in order to recruit newbies and introduce them in the game among them.

There is a whole thread on the name of the 'force field'. Magnetic Coil AFAIK wasnt mentioned, however its very generic as most electronic/electrical items have magnetic coils of some sort in them.

 

When you start playing you will be in a vast safe zone so you wont be attacked or killed, nor can you be.

 

I would suggest reading the forums, watching the DU vids from NQ to get a great idea of what is happening, what has been discussed, and what is in the future.

 

The only real issue we have atm is that the pre-alpha team are under an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) so that we cant, as of yet, get any info about the current pre-alpha.

 

We are all expecting the NDA to be lifted within the next 6 months, upon when we be able to get a grasp of the current stage of DU's development.

 

Exciting times ;)

 

Share this post


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

There is a whole thread on the name of the 'force field'. Magnetic Coil AFAIK wasnt mentioned, however its very generic as most electronic/electrical items have magnetic coils of some sort in them.

 

When you start playing you will be in a vast safe zone so you wont be attacked or killed, nor can you be.

 

I would suggest reading the forums, watching the DU vids from NQ to get a great idea of what is happening, what has been discussed, and what is in the future.

 

The only real issue we have atm is that the pre-alpha team are under an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) so that we cant, as of yet, get any info about the current pre-alpha.

 

We are all expecting the NDA to be lifted within the next 6 months, upon when we be able to get a grasp of the current stage of DU's development.

 

Exciting times ;)

 

I see... I will think a better name, I can¡t wait for the NDA lifting but im sure I will see what's happening with my own eyes soon, When are the Alpha starting by the way? Is there any date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Elobomg said:

I see... I will think a better name, I can¡t wait for the NDA lifting but im sure I will see what's happening with my own eyes soon, When are the Alpha starting by the way? Is there any date?

NQ said We should be getting an updated schedule "soon".

Share this post


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

NQ said We should be getting an updated schedule "soon".

Latest was that the updated roadmap would come in the summer so pretty much sometime in the next 4 months..

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...