Jump to content
unown006

Should automated static defences be added to duel universe?

Should automated static defences be added to duel universe? a means to a log off deffense system  

72 members have voted

  1. 1. Should automated static defences be added to duel universe?

    • Yes they are needed to balance the game
      51
    • Yes but there more nice to have but not needed
      9
    • No this would make orgs op and citys unraidable
      5
    • No this wouldnt be good for the game in general
      7


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, unown006 said:

hacking is more a agressive silent take over unless it allows you to make it so a defender does not get notified and they have not logged in or enterd the area (depends on if NQ has a log similar to arks tribe log) but if not you still lose your surprise as for aggressive silent hacking that depends on how NQ balances the defender as it could be you so much as look at a firewall you get locked out the defender knows your exact location and has been notified or it could be more relaxed we simply don"t know yet sadly

well yes, that's what I was saying.

 

attack shield -> get a notification

hack shield (somehow, whatever system, has to be balanced) -> don't get notified

 

So no, you don't lose the element of surprise - that's all I'm saying. If they go for hacking and silent mechanics that is.

 

But a timer and notification is needed regardless if you're attacked - otherwise it wouldn't be balanced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go for no surprise in base attacks. I mean attacks that can directly cause massive losses (whole base, a lot of resources, ect.)

 

Hacking and sneaking could be made just for stealing single/few very valuable objects, causing some small but important malfunctions, scouting the base, ect.

Thus they'd need to be severally limited in tools:

-No vehicles (maybe except the smallest ones)

-Only few explosions (if you blow too much stuff, FFU goes into total invincibility mode. Or limited to explosives that are way more expensive than their target)

-No heavy weapons (so anti-personal AI-turrets need to be avoided, not blown up)

-Hacking can only temporary disable devices (to let you get deeper into base, not to cause damage)

 

So base capture or mass looting -> Direct PvP battle, no surprise (FFU and warning period)

Stealing few items, scouting, sabotaging -> small infantry squad against base engineering, puzzles and AI-guns. PvE (or more like asynchronous PvP). Only works with surprise.

Ship vs ship outside bases -> attack whenever you want, however you want.

Share this post


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

well yes, that's what I was saying.

 

attack shield -> get a notification

hack shield (somehow, whatever system, has to be balanced) -> don't get notified

 

So no, you don't lose the element of surprise - that's all I'm saying. If they go for hacking and silent mechanics that is.

 

But a timer and notification is needed regardless if you're attacked - otherwise it wouldn't be balanced

 

6 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

I'd go for no surprise in base attacks. I mean attacks that can directly cause massive losses (whole base, a lot of resources, ect.)

 

Hacking and sneaking could be made just for stealing single/few very valuable objects, causing some small but important malfunctions, scouting the base, ect.

Thus they'd need to be severally limited in tools:

-No vehicles (maybe except the smallest ones)

-Only few explosions (if you blow too much stuff, FFU goes into total invincibility mode. Or limited to explosives that are way more expensive than their target)

-No heavy weapons (so anti-personal AI-turrets need to be avoided, not blown up)

-Hacking can only temporary disable devices (to let you get deeper into base, not to cause damage)

 

So base capture or mass looting -> Direct PvP battle, no surprise (FFU and warning period)

Stealing few items, scouting, sabotaging -> small infantry squad against base engineering, puzzles and AI-guns. PvE (or more like asynchronous PvP). Only works with surprise.

Ship vs ship outside bases -> attack whenever you want, however you want.

The whole atvatage you can give a attacker is surprise but I do hope if shields stay in this direction you can hack them to surprise your enemy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I change my answer... no to ai stuff for combat.

    I could imagine it though... My own army of automatons,  a fleet of drones and an infinite supply of clones.... unlikely and unfair an advantage that would be... worse, missing the point, I am. The game, YOU must play.

 

Emphasis on the YOU (the player), not ai constructs.

 

That's what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

     I change my answer... no to ai stuff for combat.

    I could imagine it though... My own army of automatons,  a fleet of drones and an infinite supply of clones.... unlikely and unfair an advantage that would be... worse, missing the point, I am. The game, YOU must play.

 

Emphasis on the YOU (the player), not ai constructs.

 

That's what I think.

these constructs can not move they are static to defend a base

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, unown006 said:

these constructs can not move they are static to defend a base

Your right, they would have to work to defend a base when you are online or offline too right? I guess automated defenses would not be unreasonable. Not only are they deployed on bases, but ships have them as well (irl). They typically are reactive and not proactive, such as shooting down missiles and divebombers. That would make sense to me. I don't know what kind of weapons you can place on your base and how much independence they are given to operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

Your right, they would have to work to defend a base when you are online or offline too right? I guess automated defenses would not be unreasonable. Not only are they deployed on bases, but ships have them as well (irl). They typically are reactive and not proactive, such as shooting down missiles and divebombers. That would make sense to me. I don't know what kind of weapons you can place on your base and how much independence they are given to operate.

And that is why this thread was made to answer these questions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unown006 said:

And that is why this thread was made to answer these questions 

Um. No. This thread was created to discus ideas. NQ will design and impliment what it believes will work.  This thread answers nothing and can only echo initial thoughts fron NQ.  ;)

Share this post


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

Um. No. This thread was created to discus ideas. NQ will design and impliment what it believes will work.  This thread answers nothing and can only echo initial thoughts fron NQ.  ;)

It can anwser things that are already confirmed by NQ

Share this post


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

Which is what I said....

Then I must have misunderstood sorry about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Yes we need auto-defence systems for balance in the game!

People cant be online all day awriday and also will keep that pesky raiders at bay ,at least for a time!

But I think that auto-deffence systems of buildings will need to be somewhat balanced on powergrid and balistic auto-turrets will need also to depend of amount of ammo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Kregon_Tempestus said:

I voted Yes we need auto-defence systems for balance in the game!

People cant be online all day awriday and also will keep that pesky raiders at bay ,at least for a time!

But I think that auto-deffence systems of buildings will need to be somewhat balanced on powergrid and balistic auto-turrets will need also to depend of amount of ammo!

The defense bubbles are intended for this purpose as stated by NQ.  They have a 24-48 hour duration (Which I hope is able to be ended by the defender) so that offline owners can’t be raided without time to prepare for defense.  That doesn’t mean I don’t think some automated defenses are needed, but just not for this purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Felonu said:

The defense bubbles are intended for this purpose as stated by NQ.  They have a 24-48 hour duration (Which I hope is able to be ended by the defender) so that offline owners can’t be raided without time to prepare for defense.  That doesn’t mean I don’t think some automated defenses are needed, but just not for this purpose.

i would like some hard for the attacker with auto defense. You know grifer ( or 'so much free time' player ) will attack to activê the bubble just for fun.

 

So auto defense well might not so optimize way to defense your base but good way to chase away those troll/griefer

Share this post


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

i would like some hard for the attacker with auto defense. You know grifer ( or 'so much free time' player ) will attack to activê the bubble just for fun.

 

So auto defense well might not so optimize way to defense your base but good way to chase away those troll/griefer

YES! great point.

 

I think that auto turrets should be expensive and inefficient, but they should be there. people who do just troll will most likely be deterred by auto turrets while those who really are playing the game will brush them away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should they be expensive and ineffective?  They should be a good choice, maybe less effective compared to manual but not too much, and they should be normally in cost, not overly costly. There is no reason too. I rather see a limit to range then an extra high cost, or make it in multiple lvls, like a mark 2, 3 etc that come in higher costs and with more power. Give the player a choice in what he/she needs and wants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

Why should they be expensive and ineffective?

Because unlike manual turrets, those are not hard limited by the amount of players. And that's huge advantage when your firepower can grow linearly over time, theoretically infinitely.

 

If we're able to control more than single weapon, then the same problem would apply to manual weapons as well. But fighting against real players is fun at least.


Limiting range would be some way to balance that, but that would just force all the attacking forces to always use only long range weapons. Quite boring and freedom-limiting IMO. Same apply for limiting penetration to make them effective only against light crafts and infantry.

 

Using upkeep system won't help either, as you can just design the base with designated spots for them, and place them in matter of minutes after spotting enemies/waiting for shields to go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2018 at 7:28 AM, Felonu said:

The defense bubbles are intended for this purpose as stated by NQ.  They have a 24-48 hour duration (Which I hope is able to be ended by the defender) so that offline owners can’t be raided without time to prepare for defense.  That doesn’t mean I don’t think some automated defenses are needed, but just not for this purpose.

What purpose besides defending something you put time into would that be?

 

45 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

Because unlike manual turrets, those are not hard limited by the amount of players. And that's huge advantage when your firepower can grow linearly over time, theoretically infinitely.

 

If we're able to control more than single weapon, then the same problem would apply to manual weapons as well. But fighting against real players is fun at least.


Limiting range would be some way to balance that, but that would just force all the attacking forces to always use only long range weapons. Quite boring and freedom-limiting IMO. Same apply for limiting penetration to make them effective only against light crafts and infantry.

 

Using upkeep system won't help either, as you can just design the base with designated spots for them, and place them in matter of minutes after spotting enemies/waiting for shields to go down.

You could make certain things like siege engines a mechanic to specifically siege bases while fleets collide and such I think it wouldn't be very boring for this reason. Also They shouldn't be overly under powered just simply make them cost more 

1 minute ago, OrpheusClayBlades said:

Yes For underground trap mazes.

Another thread I need to make later :

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, unown006 said:

 

Another thread I need to make later :

In the idea section I was asking about it before I noticed this one. But by static I am thinking not auto turret more trip sensor gun shots where it was aimed. Auto defenses should need a insanely convoluted creation time frame/system and manual programming to make them only for people that put in the extreme effort to have a extreme weapon system. This game makes me dream about playing a game like the anime Overlord. Well the game the character played before where his guild built a empire in game with npc guards and all sorts of player programmed things Although I would prefer  support to use turrets via a phone for defense than a auto turret.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, unown006 said:

What purpose besides defending something you put time into would that be?

The specific purpose that I quoted was to protect your bases while you are offline for periods of time throughout the day.  My statement when applied in context was that automated turrets could be used for other purposes (Like increasing the defensive capabilities while you are active), but should not be needed to keep you from getting attacked when offline.

 

To add to that idea, NQ has talked about scripts being run on local machines so automated defenses probably won't work when there is no active user online anyway.

Share this post


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

Because unlike manual turrets, those are not hard limited by the amount of players. And that's huge advantage when your firepower can grow linearly over time, theoretically infinitely.

 

If we're able to control more than single weapon, then the same problem would apply to manual weapons as well. But fighting against real players is fun at least.


Limiting range would be some way to balance that, but that would just force all the attacking forces to always use only long range weapons. Quite boring and freedom-limiting IMO. Same apply for limiting penetration to make them effective only against light crafts and infantry.

 

Using upkeep system won't help either, as you can just design the base with designated spots for them, and place them in matter of minutes after spotting enemies/waiting for shields to go down.

There will need to be balancing done by NQ in accordance with their vision of the game.  If you make anything both expensive and ineffective then it loses any point in existing (Not that they won't exist at all, you can find evidence of that in any sky mall magazine).  There are ways of limiting things without pushing them into the not worth it part of the value chart.  I think automated defenses should be somewhere above the cost of normal turrets (could be same cost + cost of buying/effort of making a script to run them), and have max effectiveness below the average user manually using a turret. 

 

How much cost above, and effectiveness below I'll leave up to NQ to find the balance that is in line with their vision.  The balance of these things will be much easier to debate when we have working functionality in place, because balancing any game in relation to another game never works.  Every game needs to adjust until the right balance is maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×