Jump to content
CalenLoki

Possible exploits and ways to prevent them

Recommended Posts

I have a question, What is the real reason you want to limit people in creativity and safety?

 

I can understand why you are against auto-mining and stuff like that but building is just what DU is about, and you want to limit it.

Yes i want to build an underground base, Yes if i can i put my TU in it, And Yes if i can build it so you need a thousand people to kill me, i will. Whats the problem with that? Even the real world works like that, and DU is meant to inspire creativity and immerse that into the Virtual universe.  For me this topic sounds more like you are afraid you cannot kill anyone in DU and Thats what you want to do so you propose limitations even before we know about a lot of things. Is this a topic about exploits or about fears? Building an underground base with underground TU is not an exploit, its solid smart thinking, its strategy. If Churchill was told Not to put a lot of stuff underground because it was not fair to the potential conqourer german would be the main language now. The same goes for DU, We are all free to do it our way strategically. Technically there can be limitations, but strategical, no. So If the TU cannot be put underground it must have a technological reason and not a strategical.

Sh4d0ws likes this

Share this post


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

I have a question, What is the real reason you want to limit people in creativity and safety?

 

I can understand why you are against auto-mining and stuff like that but building is just what DU is about, and you want to limit it.

Yes i want to build an underground base, Yes if i can i put my TU in it, And Yes if i can build it so you need a thousand people to kill me, i will. Whats the problem with that? Even the real world works like that, and DU is meant to inspire creativity and immerse that into the Virtual universe.  For me this topic sounds more like you are afraid you cannot kill anyone in DU and Thats what you want to do so you propose limitations even before we know about a lot of things. Is this a topic about exploits or about fears? Building an underground base with underground TU is not an exploit, its solid smart thinking, its strategy. If Churchill was told Not to put a lot of stuff underground because it was not fair to the potential conqourer german would be the main language now. The same goes for DU, We are all free to do it our way strategically. Technically there can be limitations, but strategical, no. So If the TU cannot be put underground it must have a technological reason and not a strategical.

Because construct vs construct combat (both engineering and fighting) is what I'm most interested in DU. And by allowing free placement of safe zones (like underground bunker) you totally cut off whole "fleet vs planetary base" part of the game.

And I think that NQ has similar goal - otherwise they'd allow us to build safe-zones wherever you want.

 

Also I created this topic as brain exercise, so partially for fun.

 

Creativity? Limiting viable for PvP base design to single obvious concept of underground "can't touch this" base? Limiting possible attack strategies to running straight into kill-box? What's creative about that?

Any strategy that works always, against everyone and don't have any counters should be limited in some way. Otherwise the game (at least fleet vs base part) will become dull and repetitive.

 

Don't forget that DU is a game, not real world.

 

What do you mean by technical limitations? Game engine or game lore?

If game engine, then you could as well ask for god-mode, as it's something that engine doesn't limit.

If lore, which is always less important than gameplay, then we can made up something: i.e. TU use holy cosmic quantum energy. The deeper you place it, the more conventional energy you need to use.

 

7 hours ago, CoreVamore said:

Boxed in? There is always up  :)

 

Boxes usually have leads :P Troll can box from all sides, including top and bottom.

We're talking about new player, who doesn't have access to TU due to it's price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what is meant by "allowing free placement of safe-zones". Players can never create or place safe zones. Outside the arkship safezone(s) and the sanctuary moon(s) that are both placed by NQ, players can only place "timer shields" (mechanic pending) which can be brought down. 

 

A TU is not a magical "now you can't touch me" device. I would argue that a player without a TU can hide their underground base better since it's not marked on the map as claimed.

 

Also digging cannot be prevented by a TU. Only actually gaining the resources from digging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kurock said:

Not sure what is meant by "allowing free placement of safe-zones". Players can never create or place safe zones. Outside the arkship safezone(s) and the sanctuary moon(s) that are both placed by NQ, players can only place "timer shields" (mechanic pending) which can be brought down. 

 

A TU is not a magical "now you can't touch me" device. I would argue that a player without a TU can hide their underground base better since it's not marked on the map as claimed.

 

Also digging cannot be prevented by a TU. Only actually gaining the resources from digging. 

From the news Site:

 

Unsecure Areas (UA) Meaning and Everywhere Else:

Territories located in Unsecure Areas are called “Normal Territories”.

A player can claim a Normal Territory with a Normal Territory Unit.

On unclaimed Normal Territories everything is allowed.

On claimed Normal Territories offensive actions are possible and everything else is subject to RDMS.

Low value to high value resources are available in the ground.

 

It's up to RDMS so you could dig there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Lethys said. Check this videa from ~5:00

 

Theoretically TU is no safezone.

But if it's allowed to be placed in underground bunker that can't be bombed, and can be assaulted only through kill-room... then it's pretty much the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RDMS might allow setting who can dig.  

 

I agree with the several people  that pointed out that it won’t be very useful for people to build the way that is described.  If someone doesn’t have access to the surface with a construct the benefit of having the base will be minimal, and if there is access then you can fly your own constructs down to attack them.  

 

If there are manually storing materials down a small shaft far underground, and you think there is enough to warrant the effort, then you block the entrance, and start blowing up the ground until you get down there.  

 

They spent extra time and effort every time they went down there to deposite whatever they are keeping there, and it should be offset with a little extra work on your part to get to them.

Share this post


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

 

 

What do you mean by technical limitations? Game engine or game lore?

 

I meant Lore,  If anything is limitid it should have lore origin, else it would make no sence. And indeed it is a game, but DU is build not as a game but as an immitation of what could be with a sort of experimental mode of what will the players make oout of it. So in that perspective, its not a game but a way of life (dont take that too serious) treats us and what will we make of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Felonu said:

I agree with the several people  that pointed out that it won’t be very useful for people to build the way that is described.  If someone doesn’t have access to the surface with a construct the benefit of having the base will be minimal, and if there is access then you can fly your own constructs down to attack them.  

 

If there are manually storing materials down a small shaft far underground, and you think there is enough to warrant the effort, then you block the entrance, and start blowing up the ground until you get down there.  

 

They spent extra time and effort every time they went down there to deposite whatever they are keeping there, and it should be offset with a little extra work on your part to get to them.

It seems that quite a lot of you didn't really get how such bunker would be built. All according to available knowledge of game mechanics and experience from other games (where none had any decent ways to prevent it).

 

My mad paint skills for the rescue!

 

Option A, on the left. Infantry-size shaft, with dispenser located close to the surface. In the time of peace, all resources goes there and are automatically transported down to base. Assault forces have only one path to attack - through kill-box.

 

Option B, on the right. Single shaft for specific size of the vehicle. Only one vehicle can enter kill-box (due to size). When it get pounded from all sides, the wreck block access for other assault vehicles. Infantry now can start charging entrenched defenders.

 

Questions are:

1. Where is the additional effort in running such base? You don't need to carry anything by hand.

2. Where is the additional effort to build such base? Yes, you need to dig that shaft down - that's like 50.000 cubic meters for version with shaft for small vehicles at depth of 500 meters. Circa 15 minutes for single miner.  But you save on not requiring any armour from bombardment and no long range guns. And that's much more time consuming.

3. Tell me how would you defeat such base.

 

PS I hope that ships can't dig with guns more than few meters. Otherwise any building in the game is nothing but an sand castle, and ship is nothing but paper plane.

 

PPS I also hope (maybe closer to dream, as it's quite unlikely) that explosions just spread matter around (like IRL) rather than vaporise it. Bomb inside a tunnel should make ceiling fall down and block the tunnel, not de-materialise rock and create cavern. And in such case digging with explosives would be just impossible.

 

10 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:

I meant Lore,  If anything is limitid it should have lore origin, else it would make no sence. And indeed it is a game, but DU is build not as a game but as an immitation of what could be with a sort of experimental mode of what will the players make oout of it. So in that perspective, its not a game but a way of life (dont take that too serious) treats us and what will we make of it.

To start thinking about lore for such narrow aspect as TU underground limitation, maybe first we should think about lore for TU in general? "Magic device granted by aliens to make combat more fair for those who have periodic coma (real life), thus can't always be there to defend their homes". 

Underground exploit.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I've read that rock will become harder as you go down, so it may not be so easy to excavate at any depth you like.

Other than that, I've also been wondering about how good buried sites will be on defense advantage. Will attackers really have to strip away the ground above to stand a better chance of being successful?

On the other hand, it's not exploiting to get somewhere first and prepare yourself defensively, but I get the point that (some/lots of) people will want battles to be at least somewhat even...

Share this post


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

It seems that quite a lot of you didn't really get how such bunker would be built. All according to available knowledge of game mechanics and experience from other games (where none had any decent ways to prevent it).

 

My mad paint skills for the rescue!

 

Option A, on the left. Infantry-size shaft, with dispenser located close to the surface. In the time of peace, all resources goes there and are automatically transported down to base. Assault forces have only one path to attack - through kill-box.

 

Option B, on the right. Single shaft for specific size of the vehicle. Only one vehicle can enter kill-box (due to size). When it get pounded from all sides, the wreck block access for other assault vehicles. Infantry now can start charging entrenched defenders.

 

Questions are:

1. Where is the additional effort in running such base? You don't need to carry anything by hand.

2. Where is the additional effort to build such base? Yes, you need to dig that shaft down - that's like 50.000 cubic meters for version with shaft for small vehicles at depth of 500 meters. Circa 15 minutes for single miner.  But you save on not requiring any armour from bombardment and no long range guns. And that's much more time consuming.

3. Tell me how would you defeat such base.

 

PS I hope that ships can't dig with guns more than few meters. Otherwise any building in the game is nothing but an sand castle, and ship is nothing but paper plane.

 

PPS I also hope (maybe closer to dream, as it's quite unlikely) that explosions just spread matter around (like IRL) rather than vaporise it. Bomb inside a tunnel should make ceiling fall down and block the tunnel, not de-materialise rock and create cavern. And in such case digging with explosives would be just impossible.

 

To start thinking about lore for such narrow aspect as TU underground limitation, maybe first we should think about lore for TU in general? "Magic device granted by aliens to make combat more fair for those who have periodic coma (real life), thus can't always be there to defend their homes". 

-snip-

 

Option A - I have not seen any data that makes me think anything will be able to teleport materials the way you describe the dispensers doing.  Even if there is a way to do this, I would hope they would only work 1 step, and fairly short distances. (You could transfer between each input/output unit to only 1 storage unit so it couldn't extend past 1 set, but could be multiple input/output units on storage unit)

 

Option B - If the way is big enough for a cart, then you can build a ship to fit through it to bring in constructs weapons.  The owners are taking the extra time each time they take stuff into their base to transport the goods from the top to the bottom.  They would also have to leave ships and other mobile constructs up on the surface where they would be vulnerable.

 

Answer 1 - The explanation in Option B be would explain the extra time and loss of efficiency in building a base this way assuming Option A is not possible.

Answer 2 - I don't see a need for any exceptional effort.  The efficiency loss and vulnerability of topside assets would offset the added effort in infiltration.

Answer 3 - By either taking weapons down the shaft with dense materials on the front as armor, or blasting down from the sky until you penetrate. ( I think dirt will be MUCH less protective than strong materials.) 

 

PS - Why would the weapons magically stop after a few meters down?  I would assume they would put holes at least the size of the mining function, and would be able to keep going as far down as you are willing to wait for them to get to.  I could also see a benefit for Bunker Buster type weapons that are built to penetrate a certain depth before exploding to offset some of the time needed to penetrate these buildings.

 

PPS - I don't think there has been any information from NQ whether these types of physics will be implemented or not.  Obviously all of these matters are affected in some way by the persistence of destroyed materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ad A: In one video about linking elements he said that within single construct you don't need any pipes/physical connections. So either range is unlimited within single construct (which can be huge - they said something about 500x500) or you need some "connector elements" which wouldn't be too expensive, considering the gain. I don't think it'd be 1 to 1 system, as that would make market units impossible.

 

ad answer 1: Flying extra 500m from time to time for almost invulnerability? Where do I sign in?

 

ad answer 2: Aha! That sounds like assumption that some things are forced by game mechanics to be placed on the surface! :P That still leaves pure stockpiles (i.e. pirate loot stash nearby your town) fully protected, as they only serve as storage.

 

ad B and answer 3: To shoot from that ship you need to expose the gun. And because you get shoot at from all sides, you'll be always out-gunned at least 5 to 1. Assuming they have just as much armoured guns, you'll be able to scratch one of them before your gun blows up.

Pseudo-math: 1 gun with 1 durability vs 5 guns with 1 durability each. Attacking gun dies in 0.2 units of time. Deals 0.2 units of damage to a single gun.

 

ad PS and end of answer 3: Not magically stop, it should be just damn slow and/or expensive. IRL 1KT (1.000.000 kg of TNT) digs out ~9m deep crater. That's ~33.000 cubic meters of TNT to dig 500m. Or 33.000 cubic meters of rare resources compared to defenders effort of digging 50.000 m3 of dirt and rock. Assuming that it's sci-fi and we have some more powerful explosives, that's still unavailable price for anyone except top orgs (which will fight against even deeper bunkers).

And if explosives are really compact, cheap and quick to use, then all terrain fortifications are nothing but decorations. Not to mention that planet will disintegrate within days.

 

ad PPS - if they decide to introduce such system, then digging so deep with explosives is simply impossible, because the matter you explode from the crater falls back in sealing it.

 


BTW I have nothing against defenders having advantage. Even fairly large advantage, like 5:1 (you need 5x more expensive fleet to defeat fortifications).

It's both somehow realistic (for retro-future war that use WWI balance of combat, which is fun), and help keeping some persistence in the game (as only decisive victory let you wipe enemies out).

But what advantage underground bases could possible provide is way beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underground bases are not a problem. Magical TU semi-safe-zone ground would be a problem. And I consider someone digging up my lawn quite offensive. (Do you know how long it too kind of grow that imported lawn?)

 

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that tunneling in to murder a lone gopher is not offensive and instead, by TU law, is covered by RDMS. Would it not make more sense to make rule breakers "red" for breaking a TU law instead of saying "no magical brainwashing doomajiggy says you can't dig here. But shooting? That's completely fine."

 

Let's assume even further that no matter what, you cannot use the dig tool in any way shape or form because reasons. Guns still work and can still blow holes in the terrain. It's mining without mining.

 

Let's take it even further, where no amount of firepower can dent the terrain (and digging is disabled). Now you have a safe haven. A place of 100% safety. A safe-zone away from the safezone and all is well. IMO this is the most unlikely scenario. That said, boasting about your impenetrable fortress of solitude is a great way to get some uninvited visitors up for the challenge. That's emergent gameplay.

 

So no, underground bases are not a problem.

Lethys and Aaron Cain like this

Share this post


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

ad A: In one video about linking elements he said that within single construct you don't need any pipes/physical connections. So either range is unlimited within single construct (which can be huge - they said something about 500x500) or you need some "connector elements" which wouldn't be too expensive, considering the gain. I don't think it'd be 1 to 1 system, as that would make market units impossible.

 

They haven't shown or talked about moving items using links.  Only data transfer links.

 

 

1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:

ad answer 1: Flying extra 500m from time to time for almost invulnerability? Where do I sign in?

It's not almost invulnerable if there are reasonable ways to attack... and I consider bombs from the air, and armored tanks reasonable ways to attack when you can't be attacked back without the defenders exposing themselves to your attacks.  It's also not from time to time.  Every time you want to take something to be protected you have to move it the extra distance equivalent to how deep you want to build.  I think that makes sense.

 

 

1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:

ad answer 2: Aha! That sounds like assumption that some things are forced by game mechanics to be placed on the surface! :P That still leaves pure stockpiles (i.e. pirate loot stash nearby your town) fully protected, as they only serve as storage.

This isn't really an assumption.  If I can fly my transport ship that I need to get to/away from the base, then you can fly your attack ship to the same location to destroy it.

 

1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:

ad B and answer 3: To shoot from that ship you need to expose the gun. And because you get shoot at from all sides, you'll be always out-gunned at least 5 to 1. Assuming they have just as much armoured guns, you'll be able to scratch one of them before your gun blows up.

Pseudo-math: 1 gun with 1 durability vs 5 guns with 1 durability each. Attacking gun dies in 0.2 units of time. Deals 0.2 units of damage to a single gun.

You just have to use a small bit of strategy to overcome this.  I can think of ways off the top of my head to defeat the one-sidedness of this math (Send in probe to test offensive and defensive capabilities, and then add armor to give the tank enough time to take out 1 cannon at a time while nothing except your tank is vulnerable because of the defenses.)  This is how testing defenses, and sieges work.

 

All of these assume that raining down fire from the sky is not viable though.  I think it will be, and the idea of collapsing tunnels adds different strategies.  If tunnels can collapse then bunker buster type weapons become truly devastating, as all you have to do is drop one down, and let the falling debris do the killing for you.

1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:

ad PS and end of answer 3: Not magically stop, it should be just damn slow and/or expensive. IRL 1KT (1.000.000 kg of TNT) digs out ~9m deep crater. That's ~33.000 cubic meters of TNT to dig 500m. Or 33.000 cubic meters of rare resources compared to defenders effort of digging 50.000 m3 of dirt and rock. Assuming that it's sci-fi and we have some more powerful explosives, that's still unavailable price for anyone except top orgs (which will fight against even deeper bunkers).

And if explosives are really compact, cheap and quick to use, then all terrain fortifications are nothing but decorations. Not to mention that planet will disintegrate within days.

 

 The math that I see says that TNT displaces about 100x the volume of soil as the volume of TNT used.  The information comes from operation plowshare, and is converted from nuclear explosions to the equivalent TNT amount. Link here.  So you would need about 5 detonations of about 1 m3 of TNT or equivalent to get down to your 500m deep base.  I don't think that fits with your massive numbers.  It would obviously take more than actually 5 since you would probably want a hole biger than 1m x 1m, and this assumes all the force is focused into 1 spot.  There has been no information about the weaponry in the game, so we can only guess, but a weapon that powerful doesn't seem crazy to me.

 

Share this post


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

They haven't shown or talked about moving items using links.  Only data transfer links.

They did in one of videos. It's yellow, and they named it  "resource transfer" or something like that. It connected fuel tank with engine, but the name suggested any connection meant for transporting matter. And without such connection, trading hubs wouldn't be able to operate - they need to be connected to storage and dispensers.

2 hours ago, Felonu said:

This isn't really an assumption.  If I can fly my transport ship that I need to get to/away from the base, then you can fly your attack ship to the same location to destroy it.

I never stated otherwise. My point is - your ship will be shredded to pieces, as it will be hit with far superior firepower, way more protected than anything you can ever physically bring into kill-room. Due to how geometry works - something that is inside can never have as much volume as something outside. 

 

Attached picture to make it clear what I have in mind:Underground exploit2.jpg

-top is top-down view, bottom is side view. I skipped the long shaft down, but it's still there, and depth still protects it (IMO) from any kind of aerial bombardment.

-black lines are obviously walls of our entrance corridor

-blue area is the volume of all the equipment required to fire weapons. Number of guns represent approximate volume. There is 36 in this particular example, but I could easily make it hemi-sphere and fit over 100.

-green is maximal size of the ship you can fly through corridors. It's volume can support 1 gun, of the same size and armour as mine. That's assuming you've taken the best armour/firepower ratio for such short ranged fights (I did). And I even ignored the fact that you need to sacrifice large part of capacity for ability to move.

 

I assumed that you have all the necessary information about the kill-room, as it uses well established standards and weapon/armour set-up for such short range engagement (meta). No need for probes.

 

If we assume that attackers have superior tech - then also cost must be huge. It's common in games that something 2x better (at single aspect, like damage) is at least 2x more expensive. So to even out chances in this particular example (where I paid 1 for my 36 guns) you need to have gun that is 36 times more damaging and 36 times more durable. Thus 1296 times more monies.

 

If you try to send ship after ship, to gradually weaken my defences, cost will be approximately the same.


2 hours ago, Felonu said:

 The math that I see says that TNT displaces about 100x the volume of soil as the volume of TNT used.  The information comes from operation plowshare, and is converted from nuclear explosions to the equivalent TNT amount. Link here.  So you would need about 5 detonations of about 1 m3 of TNT or equivalent to get down to your 500m deep base.  I don't think that fits with your massive numbers.  It would obviously take more than actually 5 since you would probably want a hole biger than 1m x 1m, and this assumes all the force is focused into 1 spot.  There has been no information about the weaponry in the game, so we can only guess, but a weapon that powerful doesn't seem crazy to me.

Operation plowshare is about detonation of something underground, where most of the energy is directed up (path of least resistance). Weapon hits are mostly surface thing, and most energy goes everywhere but down. Of course my data is also hardly accurate, as it's something I found on the internet, but at least is relevant to surface detonations.
Also volume=/=depth. Largest crater in US made with underground explosion was 100m deep, after using nuclear warhead with power of 104kt. That's 1kt/m of depth, even worse ration then what I found.

If we get explosives that powerful, then whole large ship or base engineering is totally pointless, because combat is about who shoot first. Eventually who has more spread forces.

 

 

About the collapsing thing - while I'd love some shock-wave mechanics, It's few steps ahead in complexity compared to what I suggested.

Picture no#2 for better explanation.

Conservation of matter.jpg

A-shows how much explosion can destroy.

B-that's what most voxel games use - rock is just vaporised by explosion and case to exist.

C-that's what I'd love to see in game - explosion still destroy as much rock, but it doesn't vanish. Instead, it flies as physical objects in all directions, and once it stop moving it re-join voxel grid again (As gravel - light grey. Easier to mine, but shooting at it won't help much). As you could imagine, series of weak explosions meant to dig deeper won't be able to propel rocks out of the hole, thus digging that way won't be possible. I don't know how could it work in space, as without gravity that would lead to huge amount of small objects trapped at geostationary orbit.

Effect? Field that is bombed for years would still have roughly the same average altitude, because dirt will be just thrown from one place to another, then back. With typical system (B) it would be huge hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's all speculative currently.  I don't think having underground bases will make you invulnerable, and stated my reason why.  You think they would be and stated your reasons.  When we have more information about the mechanics of these things the debate will actually have some level of accuracy.

CoreVamore likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed to disagree. I'll be sure to come here in some years just to tell you "told ye!" ;) 

 

I kind of enjoy such pure speculative conversations based on loose assumptions :D 

Share this post


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

Agreed to disagree. I'll be sure to come here in some years just to tell you "told ye!" ;) 

 

I kind of enjoy such pure speculative conversations based on loose assumptions :D 

Nothing will be invulnerable (at least not for long) and nothing will be the 'perfect/only way to do something'. Everything will be destructible or able to be circumvented by the right items/skills/tactics.

 

If anything does develop contrary to that then I'm sure NQ will make adjustments so that the game stays both balanced and diverse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dualism said:

So far I've read that rock will become harder as you go down, so it may not be so easy to excavate at any depth you like.

My apologies. I missed your input between all those walls of text.

You're right, deeper->harder. But it's double edge sword: harder to dig -> harder to blow up. Thus it more or less even-out, so doesn't affect underground bunkers too much.

8 hours ago, CoreVamore said:

If anything does develop contrary to that then I'm sure NQ will make adjustments so that the game stays both balanced and diverse.

Hope so. But we have no info about that specific matter, so we can spend that time entertaining ourselves with theoretical conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should let the matter of underground bunker stop for now. All we got now just assume how to fight, not any useful information. So we should wait until we got a sight at PvP ,CvC.

 

Who know we may got GAS.

GunDeva likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to point out that what you are talking about is not what exploits are. 

 

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.

 

Duping items, walking through walls, abusing some weird clipping issues to gain an unfair advantage etc. Those are exploits. You are describing gameplay that you don't like/see as a potential problem. 

 

 

Aaron Cain and Ben Fargo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boxing newbies intended by NQ? Huh?

Or maybe automatic mining? I think I've read somewhere that they don't really like it.

Bases that give you 20x+ advantage over attackers? Definitely Sounds like NQ intentions too. 

 

Yes, all those things would be within game system, unless prevented by other game systems (i.e. things listed as "possible solutions").

They'd also be exploits, according to the definitions you posted. Not hacks, not bugs, not cheats - just legit but not intended advantages that dull gameplay (IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @CalenLoki :)

2 hours ago, Falstaf said:

Those are exploits.

For me the bit which is impossible to know is the 'unintended' use of features, especially as combinations. Some combinations may stay pretty secret, thus undiscussed, and thus we won't know the level of dev awareness or intention. In advance of systems actually being in place I think it is more valid to try and draw devs' attention to areas of potentially high imbalance.

 

Perhaps the biggie for me is the lua functions, as they are within the game and not keyboard macros or whatever. If we are given great freedoms, then the results will not be exploits, but cleverness. As a major aim of DU is to have emergent gameplay, then in a sense the idea is for complexity to emerge with advantages that others do not have. Thus my biggest single combo question is: how much can we automate, in what circumstances, and to what extent?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the WIki, during the Kickstarter AMA, this came up: https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Archive:Kickstarter_AMA_Q%26A,_Part_One#Territory_Trespassing

 

Q: If you are flagged as not having permission to mine in my owned territory, can you still dig and mine, and just get flagged for breaking that, or does the game not let you mine or dig at all?

A: You will not be able to mine, but you will still be able to enter the territory (and be flagged for that), and possibly destroy materials by using weapons (if not in a safe zone) instead of mining equipment.

 

With the ability to destroy the ground with weapons, I can simply tunnel around defenses and find the 'weak spot'.  Or, if you have a large underground complex, you might build in the middle of a cavern with a protected structure in the middle.  Or you might try to be sneaky, and build an underground bunker and not deploy a TCU so no one notices you are there.  I guess it's also worth linking another Q&A from that AMA about how deep you can go:

 

https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Archive:Kickstarter_AMA_Q%26A,_Part_One#Planet_Depth

 

Is there a limit to how deep you can dig? To put this question into better context, I would imaging that you would want to hide your possessions from other players. I am wondering about what are the limits of editing the environment?

There are no technical limit to how deep you could dig, but we will put some limits for gameplay reasons. The exact depth is not set yet, but below something like a few kilometers, you will encounter lava, which will help making the job of deep mining prospection more dangerous (like in Minecraft, actually). We may have a few small moons that do not have this restriction. And, yes, hiding your stuff underground will be a possibility. But we are looking at ways to make this a bit more difficult, so there is a tradeoff, for example adding the need for special gears to breathe in the depth, requiring costly cartridges to operate, etc.

Lethys and GunDeva like this

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

×