Jump to content
unown

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  

119 members have voted

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

    • Yes they are needed to balance the game
      89
    • Yes but there more nice to have but not needed
      10
    • No this would make orgs op and citys unraidable
      10
    • No this wouldnt be good for the game in general
      10


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, unown006 said:

Who said they would not cost orgs anything nor require upkeep? And by sizable force I mean Also by sizable force I cant be specific because the mechanics are not currently introduced in the game. So you will have to inure what a sizable force would mean.

Noone said that. And it's no argument either as in "large orgs won't have many because upkeep"

Share this post


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

Because I don't rly know what you mean by "sizeable force". As explained. 

 

Static defenses should only deter a random pirate or a very small gang at most (4-5 ships). Otherwise they're too op and will be abused by everyone, especially large orgs. There's no argument for large orgs not to spam them everywhere (no limit it might have, no resources such defenses might cost, no upkeep, no energy consumption,....)

"no limit it might have, no resources such defenses might cost, no upkeep, no energy consumption,...." 

Share this post


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

Noone said that. And it's no argument either as in "large orgs won't have many because upkeep"

Ah but it can be depending on how its added for example NQ could if they deem is necessary impose a specific mechanic to make it harder to maintain for larger orgs now you may be thinking thats not fair but realize Thats what you would be asking for or some other "solution"

Just now, unown006 said:

"no limit it might have, no resources such defenses might cost, no upkeep, no energy consumption,...." 

you did here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unown006 said:

Ah but it can be depending on how its added for example NQ could if they deem is necessary impose a specific mechanic to make it harder to maintain for larger orgs now you may be thinking thats not fair but realize Thats what you would be asking for or some other "solution"

you did here

Not going to work. Spam alt chars in a deadzone org, give them full RDMS in your main org, done. easy. circumvents any limit on how much an org can place, increase in upkeep would be irrelevant.

 

I said "there's no argument for orgs not to spam them". No upkeep cost in the world which NQ define now will keep orgs from spamming them. In eve they said titans will be a rare sight because of how expensive they are. Everyone and their mother has one now. 

Share this post


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

Not going to work. Spam alt chars in a deadzone org, give them full RDMS in your main org, done. easy. circumvents any limit on how much an org can place, increase in upkeep would be irrelevant.

 

I said "there's no argument for orgs not to spam them". No upkeep cost in the world which NQ define now will keep orgs from spamming them. In eve they said titans will be a rare sight because of how expensive they are. Everyone and their mother has one now. 

Eve is also 16 years old so that would not be a very fair comparison I think what may be better for that would be either keep stars or a Palatine Keepstar  (as this could represent the cost of making a good to impossible deffence system as a reference however I see what you mean Now on the topic of alt spam That may not be possible do to future rules (NQ Banning it) And If they do Alt spam they still need to pay for dacs whitch may not be as viable as it is with eve

Share this post


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

Eve is also 16 years old so that would not be a very fair comparison I think what may be better for that would be either keep stars or a Palatine Keepstar  (as this could represent the cost of making a good to impossible deffence system as a reference however I see what you mean Now on the topic of alt spam That may not be possible do to future rules (NQ Banning it) And If they do Alt spam they still need to pay for dacs whitch may not be as viable as it is with eve

You don't even need to alt spam. A group of allied smaller orgs who give each other rdms access would have the same effect. And I think they would have a really hard time putting in a mechanism to stop that. It's a civilisation building mmo, people collaborating is a core concept.

Share this post


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

You don't even need to alt spam. A group of allied smaller orgs who give each other rdms access would have the same effect. And I think they would have a really hard time putting in a mechanism to stop that. It's a civilisation building mmo, people collaborating is a core concept.

Thats a Alligence somthing anyone can do it nor do I see a problem with it

Share this post


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

Thats a Alligence somthing anyone can do it nor do I see a problem with it

So there's only issues with large numbers of players collaborating if theyre in the same org?

 

Whilst we know almost nothing about combat, I'm fairly confident that a 100 players from a single org, or 100 players from 10 co-operating orgs will have roughly the same effect.

Share this post


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

Eve is also 16 years old so that would not be a very fair comparison I think what may be better for that would be either keep stars or a Palatine Keepstar  (as this could represent the cost of making a good to impossible deffence system as a reference however I see what you mean Now on the topic of alt spam That may not be possible do to future rules (NQ Banning it) And If they do Alt spam they still need to pay for dacs whitch may not be as viable as it is with eve

Maybe, maybe not. Rn they plan on having 3 chars per account so that's already 4 to 10 alts for deadzoning. That means that org can easily circumvent any limit NQ may have for large orgs. 

 

I seriously doubt they limit alts though, because it's revenue for them. Even more than a sub because of DACs (18€ compared to 14€ sub)

 

DACs may be more expensive than in eve rn, because we only have one real quanta faucet in DU. Then again,  ppl have more than one acc already (I have 3 lifetime packs for example) so it would be an unfair advantage if they did impose some kind of limit on defenses. I could then easily have 8 one man orgs to circumvent that

Share this post


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

Maybe, maybe not. Rn they plan on having 3 chars per account so that's already 4 to 10 alts for deadzoning. That means that org can easily circumvent any limit NQ may have for large orgs. 

 

I seriously doubt they limit alts though, because it's revenue for them. Even more than a sub because of DACs (18€ compared to 14€ sub)

 

DACs may be more expensive than in eve rn, because we only have one real quanta faucet in DU. Then again,  ppl have more than one acc already (I have 3 lifetime packs for example) so it would be an unfair advantage if they did impose some kind of limit on defenses. I could then easily have 8 one man orgs to circumvent that

I was unaware of this thank you ;)

 

8 hours ago, Sparktacus said:

So there's only issues with large numbers of players collaborating if theyre in the same org?

 

Whilst we know almost nothing about combat, I'm fairly confident that a 100 players from a single org, or 100 players from 10 co-operating orgs will have roughly the same effect.

Yes they would

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game is supposed to be set in the 26th century, and you mean to tell me they don't have automated turrets in what is supposed to be a futuristic sci-fi mmo? 

 

I really don't see a problem with automated turrets, as long as they are balanced by the need to supply them with commensurate amounts of power.  The bigger the guns, the more power needed to use them.  Especially in the case of turrets mounted with energy-based weapons (together with the substantial purchase price and maintenance costs of an appropriately powerful reactor, in order to continually run them).  If the turrets are mounted with ballistic weapons, then you would probably not require such a powerful reactor to power them, but you would still need to purchase a reactor (albeit of lesser performance), and foot the bill for the accompanying maintenance costs.  You would also need to account for the cost of stocking and supplying ballistics mounted turrets with the ammunition that they're going to fire in the event of an enemy attack.  Raiding a properly defended city should never be an easy task.   It's an epic undertaking that should come with a correlative amount of risk.  A well thought out and designed defensive fortification would require one heck of a raiding party to topple it. 

 

Picture it, organisations would be able to showcase their impressive array of automated, twin-mounted turrets to prospective citizens/members, in addition to other security measures they have implemented, as part of their stated commitment to provide players  with a safe environment in what would otherwise be a very dangerous pvp universe in which to attempt to safely build anything.  Players would pay a tax to the organization in exchange for the provision of safety.  In marketing its defensive capabilities to players (along with offering additional benefits for those architects, builders, artists, engineers and strategists out there), an organization might be able to attract especially talented players who could help it develop some awe-inspiring cities that others players will surely want to come visit and spend their time in.

 

Share this post


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

This game is supposed to be set in the 26th century, and you mean to tell me they don't have automated turrets in what is supposed to be a futuristic sci-fi mmo? 

 

I really don't see a problem with automated turrets, as long as they are balanced by the need to supply them with commensurate amounts of power.  The bigger the guns, the more power needed to use them.  Especially in the case of turrets mounted with energy-based weapons (together with the substantial purchase price and maintenance costs of an appropriately powerful reactor, in order to continually run them).  If the turrets are mounted with ballistic weapons, then you would probably not require such a powerful reactor to power them, but you would still need to purchase a reactor (albeit of lesser performance), and foot the bill for the accompanying maintenance costs.  You would also need to account for the cost of stocking and supplying ballistics mounted turrets with the ammunition that they're going to fire in the event of an enemy attack.  Raiding a properly defended city should never be an easy task.   It's an epic undertaking that should come with a correlative amount of risk.  A well thought out and designed defensive fortification would require one heck of a raiding party to topple it. 

 

Picture it, organisations would be able to showcase their impressive array of automated, twin-mounted turrets to prospective citizens/members, in addition to other security measures they have implemented, as part of their stated commitment to provide players  with a safe environment in what would otherwise be a very dangerous pvp universe in which to attempt to safely build anything.  Players would pay a tax to the organization in exchange for the provision of safety.  In marketing its defensive capabilities to players (along with offering additional benefits for those architects, builders, artists, engineers and strategists out there), an organization might be able to attract especially talented players who could help it develop some awe-inspiring cities that others players will surely want to come visit and spend their time in.

 

As to the theme genre = sci-fi, No true sci-fi and all that? Hell there probably wouldn't even be human meat-sacks but some sort of AI transferrable over some new super fast wave form across robotic physical infrastructure! Let's not go down that road. ?

 

The first assumption is that automated turrets are needed? For what?

 

People who want "cities in space" probably don't want combat but building. Hence it's already counter-productive to include PvP in such areas.

 

People who want combat probably will need to do so for economic reasons to make pvp integrated into the game for long-term (re-)cycling of gameplay. They'll be interested in actual human to human combat gameplay eg ships and base attacks of other pvp-economic groups who want to control the money and resources and networks in the game to supply the cities.

 

Hence auto-defences seem like a non-starter. If players are involved in the above, they'll need to grow into behemoth groups in the first place and with enough players online to either attack or defend - and inevitably be stretched thus creating natural distribution of groups in dynamic equilibrium of contest.

 

Anything else? It sounds like a lot of assumptions and complexity for a result that may not arise and may not even be noticed or even be fun.

 

No defences which can be automated with players around to run them from control panels in the base? For sure!

 

The question is? What permanent structure is ever going to be worth a pvp economic org's time? They'll put weapons and manpower up where it's at the sharp end - which presumably is a "movable feast"??

 

Just asking some "check questions?" Not necessarily asserting the above over other claims to the contrary... ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

As to the theme genre = sci-fi, No true sci-fi and all that? Hell there probably wouldn't even be human meat-sacks but some sort of AI transferrable over some new super fast wave form across robotic physical infrastructure! Let's not go down that road. ?

 

The first assumption is that automated turrets are needed? For what?

 

People who want "cities in space" probably don't want combat but building. Hence it's already counter-productive to include PvP in such areas.

 

People who want combat probably will need to do so for economic reasons to make pvp integrated into the game for long-term (re-)cycling of gameplay. They'll be interested in actual human to human combat gameplay eg ships and base attacks of other pvp-economic groups who want to control the money and resources and networks in the game to supply the cities.

 

Hence auto-defences seem like a non-starter. If players are involved in the above, they'll need to grow into behemoth groups in the first place and with enough players online to either attack or defend - and inevitably be stretched thus creating natural distribution of groups in dynamic equilibrium of contest.

 

Anything else? It sounds like a lot of assumptions and complexity for a result that may not arise and may not even be noticed or even be fun.

 

No defences which can be automated with players around to run them from control panels in the base? For sure!

 

The question is? What permanent structure is ever going to be worth a pvp economic org's time? They'll put weapons and manpower up where it's at the sharp end - which presumably is a "movable feast"??

 

Just asking some "check questions?" Not necessarily asserting the above over other claims to the contrary... ?

 

Yeah, true.   Everyone will have their own take on what they'd like to see (and what they wouldn't like) in the game.  However, I'd like to think that there will be some organizations in the game that will recognize the exposure and prestige that will come with building, owning and running a great-looking, well-designed city, developed over time to be filled with a variety of interesting content and roles to play.  News of these places will spread throughout the community, and perhaps attract new players to the game via third party media sources.  Of course, those places would also attract tyrants, hence the need for adequate defensive mechanisms in place.  I think automated turrets are reasonable.  Some organizations, then,  are bound to see the value in providing players with fortified PvP safe spaces outside of the safe zones around the Arkship to build, in exchange for a payment of 'protection money' (i.e. taxes).  Heck, some organizations may even be role-playing oriented organizations, and may be open to the idea of creating cities in order to pursue their role-playing exploits.

 

Perhaps, the tax system (like in real life), could be tiered accordingly (tax-bracketed), based on a player's total income per a certain designated amount of time.  Then again, that kind of system might require too much in the way of administrative overhead for an organization, and be open to all kinds of accounting shenanigans.  A fixed system, where all members are charged the same amount of quanta per X amount of time, would probably be less of a headache to administrate.  Perhaps, the organizations themselves will employ someone to organize some direction in the building activities (in terms of zoning), so as to give the end result some coherence and structure (see, we have a role someone can play already! ☺️ ).  I don't think every PvP player simply wants to play the 'Dread Overlord' who has come to smash and pillage, and I don't think every builder/architect wants to play the hermit and hide in some sort of PvE ivory tower. 

 

I think (at least, I hope) that there will be a significant number of players who want to strike a balance between the desire to build relatively free of harassment, and wanting to get out there and get involved in building some places of interest for the development of some engaging and emergent story-telling.   In that case, the scenario I described above would be a mutually beneficial way of achieving that.  Novaquark have stated that they want DU to be a game where you can do anything.  I'd include deploying automated turrets to guard a fortified city inhabited (to a fair degree, hopefully a large one) by creative city-building types who want to build something that is altogether awe-inspiring in Novaquark's description of the intended purpose of the game.  This game is therefore going to attract all sorts, so it's only fair that if there are those (and there will be) who want to invade and conquer, it should be made bloody hard for them to do.  Empire building through military conquest , I would imagine, is a hard slog.  That will help retain the interest of those players who want to create and connect in peace, but don't necessarily want to limit themselves to a pitiful 20km radius.  The best sci-fi worlds created in popular culture are not just about blood, mayhem and military might and domination.  They're also the about the interspersing personal stories, within the overall narrative, of distinguished places, cultural belonging and human connection (as soppy as that may sound).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, OldingDaGrund said:

However, I'd like to think that there will be some organizations in the game that will recognize the exposure and prestige that will come with building, owning and running a great-looking, well-designed city, developed over time to be filled with a variety of interesting content and roles to play.  News of these places will spread throughout the community, and perhaps attract new players to the game via third party media sources.  Of course, those places would also attract tyrants, hence the need for adequate defensive mechanisms in place.  I think automated turrets are reasonable.  Some organizations, then,  are bound to see the value in providing players with fortified PvP safe spaces outside of the safe zones around the Arkship to build, in exchange for a payment of 'protection money' (i.e. taxes).

Yes, this hits the nail on the head with respect to INTEGRATED PvP gameplay +/With Civilization (aka building "the sims") Gameplay. If this is the underlying basis then it makes sense for some form of fortification/defences eg automated turrets and timers and whatnot.

 

It's an excellent point to assert before then suggesting how to defend eg turrets. Perhaps the strongest case is for such provisions outside safe zones to be possible?

 

So it goes back to what will be the right balance of safe zones to pvp fortified zones? That's an interesting question. I've tended to err on the side of parsimony: People who want to build want to build with 100% guarantees that their time and money investment is secure whenever they return to it and pvp'ers in general will concentrate on pvp and domination and competition. But a a halfway house, the idea that fortifications can create PvP cities for pvp'ers: It's a good call in that scenario though I doubt it will be the major scenario: Mostly a project of prestige or "power projection": Though such a project would be a flame to moths or more appropriately, a giant moth to many flames.

 

Taxing for protection or security money is an interesting way to integrate cities and combat. Though as above, the problem is 2 different game plays ; what role cities to pvp'ers who would want to convert every profit into muscle power or hive fleet numbers and secondly even with protections it's almost as if such a project would attract even more interest by those who enjoy destroying! I mean to claim you sack a huge city and toppled it to the ground is probably one of the most rewarding stories possible in game to boast about... and thus paying taxes for this result is ultimately money down the drain proposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

It's an excellent point to assert before then suggesting how to defend eg turrets. Perhaps the strongest case is for such provisions outside safe zones to be possible?

So it goes back to what will be the right balance of safe zones to pvp fortified zones?

 

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.  Outside of that 20km radius around the Arkship where players start off, you have PvP space.  To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one safe zone and it's that 20km around the Arkship.  The rest of DU's infinite space is PvP area where players can be attacked, mugged and killed.   Fortified strongholds (whether they be planet-based or located in space stations) would be a viable way of encouraging players to venture out into the boundless expanse of PvP space.  Automated turrets would be a viable option for static constructs  on the basis that static constructs don't have the option to just get up and run away.  They either defend themselves or they are destroyed.  Automated turrets are a static construct's way of defending itself.  These turrets would be in addition to whatever manually operated assets (e.g. patrol ships) an organization sees fit to deploy.

 

18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

People who want to build want to build with 100% guarantees that their time and money investment is secure whenever they return to it and pvp'ers in general will concentrate on pvp and domination and competition.

Well, the great thing about DU is that its PvP gameplay will offer players a variety of perspectives in how they approach PvP.  For example, as you said above, a bustling, thriving city stronghold will probably attract would-be tyrants like moths to a flame, so pvpers will see plenty of action without necessarily having to always play the role of the war-mongering marauder who just wants to conquer and see the world burn ?.  Some of those players (who decide to come and 'settle' in a PvP city) will themselves be PvP'ers, whose services an organization could employ in doing exactly what the PvP player wants to do most in the game: that is, to engage other players in competitive combat.  Hopefully distinguishing themselves in defense of the city if and when the city comes under attack.  They would in effect function as soldiers, and just like real life, soldiers could be recognized and rewarded for their achievements (both on and off the battlefield) with military decorations, rank, or even tax exemptions and other benefits.  So players could still PvP, but as defenders, rather than attackers.  It would all depend on what appeals to any given player.  DU will offer players plenty of choices that are only limited by a player's imagination.

 

18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

Taxing for protection or security money is an interesting way to integrate cities and combat. Though as above, the problem is 2 different game plays ; what role cities to pvp'ers who would want to convert every profit into muscle power or hive fleet numbers and secondly even with protections it's almost as if such a project would attract even more interest by those who enjoy destroying! I mean to claim you sack a huge city and toppled it to the ground is probably one of the most rewarding stories possible in game to boast about... and thus paying taxes for this result is ultimately money down the drain proposition?

It all depends on what a player is looking for in the game.  All gamers, in the end, are role-players and a particular player may not be looking to play the role of a tyrant who wants to see a city burn to the ground.  They just might be looking to play the role of the hero who fights in defense of said city.   Then there's the imagination of players in trying to make some money in the game.  Some players may form organizations who go into the mercenary business of providing security-for-hire to anyone who can pay.  Where there is a demand, someone will provide a supply.  I could imagine a scenario where a security service oriented organization enters into an arrangement whereby it agrees to protect a city with its impressive inventory of military assets in exchange for access to a rich vein of some valuable mineral ore located within the hiring organization's territory.  Just an example, but DU will offer players so many options in how to play the game.  So I don't think we can say every player is going to PvP this way or that. 

Share this post


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

 

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.  Outside of that 20km radius around the Arkship where players start off, you have PvP space.  To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one safe zone and it's that 20km around the Arkship.  The rest of DU's infinite space is PvP area where players can be attacked, mugged and killed.   Fortified strongholds (whether they be planet-based or located in space stations) would be a viable way of encouraging players to venture out into the boundless expanse of PvP space.  Automated turrets would be a viable option for static constructs  on the basis that static constructs don't have the option to just get up and run away.  They either defend themselves or they are destroyed.  Automated turrets are a static construct's way of defending itself.  These turrets would be in addition to whatever manually operated assets (e.g. patrol ships) an organization sees fit to deploy.

 

Well, the great thing about DU is that its PvP gameplay will offer players a variety of perspectives in how they approach PvP.  

 

It all depends on what a player is looking for in the game.  All gamers, in the end, are role-players and a particular player may not be looking to play the role of a tyrant who wants to see a city burn to the ground.  

One of the previous limitations was "no automated actions without a nearby player" to limit server load, to also consider with respect to static automatic turrets. Someone will have to be on hand, perhaps fingering the console control GUI (sorry conscious ape-thinking AI, you'll have to rise the robots in another universe!)?

 

So we'll have to see what PvP players actually do, is my guess (to each other to note!). Perhaps in Alpha 3 we can "would you like to learn more?"? But noted with respect to the sheer amount of "space" that PvP'ers will operate over. That will be very interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OldingDaGrund said:

Outside of that 20km radius around the Arkship where players start off, you have PvP space.  To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one safe zone and it's that 20km around the Arkship.  

NQ said there will be the ASA "Arkship Safe Area" and also several MSA "Moon Safe Area" aka Sanctuary Moons.  Both will be PvE only areas.

 

IMO, automated defensive turrets for static constructs are only necessary if timer-based shields are uber expensive (which tbh they probably will be).  Regardless, balancing automated weapons will be a challenge, particularly to avoid spamming by large orgs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 2:00 AM, Borb_1 said:

So we'll have to see what PvP players actually do, is my guess (to each other to note!). Perhaps in Alpha 3 we can "would you like to learn more?"? But noted with respect to the sheer amount of "space" that PvP'ers will operate over. That will be very interesting.

Yeah, I guess we'll have to wait and see.  It would be a shame to waste all that infinite space just for fighting.  I'd like to see a DU world with all kinds of activities going on: politics, war, industry and commerce, exploration and discovery, entertainment, education, even, and just plain ol' chilling in a bar (or some other meeting place) and getting to know people, talking about designs on projects you're working on etc...  Imagine someone holding classes, scheduled for a certain time, in some room they've rented from another player (or organization) who owns the building, in some street, in a part of some city, teaching LUA scripting in the game to interested players, for a fee (quanta).  That would be extremely cool.

On 3/2/2019 at 2:55 AM, SGCam said:

NQ said there will be the ASA "Arkship Safe Area" and also several MSA "Moon Safe Area" aka Sanctuary Moons.  Both will be PvE only areas.

I see.  I hadn't read the page that discusses 'Moon Secure Areas', interesting.  This is good news.  I was going on the assumption that the only safe space was the 'Arkship Secure Area'. This would severely limit and discourage players who want to get out there and enjoy the best of both worlds (pvp and civilization-building gameplay).  In that case, that changes the whole equation in terms of player incentives, and I understand Borb_1's reasoning a little better now.  It's unlikely that players are going to want to put the work into building a city in dangerous PvP space, when and if there are other safe spaces other than the areas around the starting point at the Arkship.  Although it's still possible. 

 

For example, an organization may wish to build a city in a space station (similar to Star Trek's 'Deep Space Nine').  Though these types of structure would more than likely be designed and intended for more military purposes, and so there'd be no need to build the kind of civilian-friendly city that I have in mind.    At any rate, those 'Moon Secure Areas' will serve as peaceful centres for 'civilization building', amongst other things (since no fighting will be permitted in those areas).  PvP players will duke it out in the vastness of PvP space for control of highly valued resources (since resources located in the secure areas will be of lower value), and then supply those high-value resources into the secure (PvE) areas, with which players can build things.  I hope Novaquark will elect to give some of those 'Moon Secure Areas' biomes that are a little more visually interesting than the barren dust-ball environment of Earth's Moon.  A place to build and interact, free of harassment with a terrestrial mix of biomes as diverse and interesting as Earth, would be amazing. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is several points that need to be tackled here.

1) Players must have fun.
Newcomers especially or they will hit the road.

Offline defence in one way or another is must have for starters.

 

2) Players must have fun N2

How fun to know that there is no risk? Not much :) All this attack planning, preparations, time for first strike, all this meta features will be impaired. And they are fun, very fun :)

 

3) Justice! Or "my frustration must be explainable"

Imagine you work hard, create things, weeks and weeks of good gameplay (and your money!), and then, in one day everything gone, destroyed. And you did everything right, you was online 18 hours a day to protect your game, but attackers was from other timezone... You had no chance. You wasnt able even to move your most expensive items to the safe location.
Why? Because it is World Wide MMO, and timezone issue will be your pain in the... you know where :) Even for big organizations.
So, something like EVE reinforcement is must have.

4) This is MMO.

This is game about cooperation. Of course, organizations will and should have advantages, but, one of the corner stone of good MMO game is balance between risk and reward.
Gamedesign should be build in such way that any attack should have cost. Even if attackers wasn't damaged, they must spend resources on attack (ammo, fuel e.t.c.)
That will not stop attacks entirely, but that will reduce attacks on those who have nothing to take.

Other thing in this regard - in some games gamedesign build in such way that players is strongly forced to cooperate.
Example of this feature - Players can craft items only from resources that is specific for this Player craft recipe. In the same time collecting of resources is random and all players gather all variety of resources. Some of that resources have big value for this particular player, other resources have value for other players. That leads to resource exchange (cooperation) which is forced by game rules.
This is just an example, Im not suggesting this idea straightly, but this example gives brief view on "forced cooperation" gamedesign pattern.

Implementing of "forced cooperation" gamedesign pattern will lead to situations where it will be more profitable to cooperate but not attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will need semi-automated defenses

Lets make this very simple,

 

there are over 34k accounts at the moment but these will be alot higher at release, but just use these for now.

 

3 alts per account makes 100k characters in game.

 

Even if Only 10% of these characters are planning to rob Everything they see that makes 10.000 characters. There is no way without automated defenses to do anything about it what would result in massive destruction of property. Adding semi-automated defenses does not stop this but make properties a bit less looking like a free giftshop.

 

This will not stop people who really are looking for loot but it will stop the casual "hey i found a base and nobody is online now, lets see whats free" people. And everyone who played Empyrion or Space Engineers has probably had the pleasure of finding their base totally emptied out (if they did not add guns to them).

 

Adding the semi-automated defences is just a way to have a higher viability of DU in general. TU or STU will not be a solution due to the costs of those and the limitations but these will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all these comments, I feel like 99% of the people never played a game similar to DU. Turrets is a must/mandatory!  This studio is not making a survival, theme, single, or even small group game similar to rust. Their goal/vision is to create a civilization creating MMO. People advocating for  no turrets are either A) want to make it easier to grief/troll people or B ) Might want play a game like Space Engineers or a similar. Now knowing the vision, how can we implement it?

 

I say that we should have an assortment of turrets in game ranging from anti personnel guns to something that can take out a battleship. They are automated and can be applied to static structures or even ships and there is no hard limit to the amount of turrets a player can put on their ship/structure. The only difference is that there is an increased response time when it comes to the fire rate and tracking of enemies compared to using a live human. Sounds broken? Yea, if I didn't come up with a blatant rip off utilizing another system. This system is taking the same mechanics that Eve has when it comes ship fitting.

 

You can have a 1 man base operate a automated turret that can take out a battle cruiser, but it is dependent on available power from a power source. Obviously the large the turret & more of them the more power it consumes from the power source, as they require a certain amount of power used to fire a shot before going into a cycle (rate of fire). I say "power source" comparable to gas and that the power source recharges X amount of energy per second. If the power source you built or bought has a power limit of medium turrets, then you need to upgrade your power source with modules or the the turret will just offline your base.

 

There is a way to balance this and if you have played Eve you should know it, just balance the block that is required to start the build of an item or the item itself. If you haven't played Eve, just download a tool called Pyfa and you can fit ships. The hull has limitations on the amount of power output and cpu output, so technically you can put battleship modules on a battle cruiser. But you run the risk of not being able to fit other modules because of the increase power/cpu intake from said module. Automated turrets on ships will be limited based off the size of a ship and so they can't be upset if there fighter sized vessel can only fit an anti personnel turret.

 

The reality is, that if Nova doesn't put a variety of automated turrets this will squeeze out the small groups. So a player will have 2 choices, join massive player blob for security/protection or expect to lose ships that you invested all that time in constantly. You already see it in Eve null sec with a major blue doughnut, as humans are naturally risk adverse. If you don't think so, please prove me wrong and load yourself up with valuables and take a plane ride to Libya and show off that bling. Most of the comments here are blowing it out of proportion on balance and for me just going off the videos put out, the projects scale  based off the amount of players/time. This game is already going to be the most resource intensive game for players and forcing them to park a ship without any automated defense, well this game will go the way of the dodo bird.

 

 

Edited by plmkoi
Had to emphasize some words for dramatic effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automated turrets would be nice, but the will not be necessary. NQ has already stated that they will have a protection shield that will only be able to be attacked during certain time zones. This will negate the need to defend you base from other players constantly, because you can set RDMS so that only players you know will be able to edit you construct or territories. I dosent matter that it costs a lot, because that is the price of safety. Until you can afford one of those shields, you can stay in the ark safe zone to protect your stuff

Share this post


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

protection shield that will only be able to be attacked during certain time zones.

Its got a timer on it to gather defenses (24 to 48h) but can be attacked at any time. Or, if I'm wrong there, then pls link to that statement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 9:39 PM, unown said:

Eve is also 16 years old so that would not be a very fair comparison 

I just want to point out, titans are not 16 years old.  It was actually a relatively short time frame for titans to be everywhere and accessible to the people that wanted them. Especially in a game that wants people to possibly play for decades, a couple of years is nothing. Balancing something solely on cost is terrible and never works. 

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...