Jump to content
geronimo553

Territory Unit abuse ideas, maybe

Recommended Posts

Hey all, so I have a couple thoughts or concerns regarding the Territory Unit. Having the ability to claim a section of land is a great feature for sure. But what prevents people from grieving with a TU when someone else has already built on the land/grid without one? Would a TU cause the blocks inside the grid space to no longer be owned by the original owner if someone places a TU there; or prevent the original owner from editing them because this stranger now owns the land instead?  My biggest concern is someone placing a TU on land where someone else has built something then use the features of the TU as a form of grieving via locking the original owner from their creations. My solution to this problem (if it exists) is the TU cannot claim land if another x amount of owned construction is already within the grid. 

My other concern is displaying grid ownership on the map. I would like the ability to "hide" ownership of a grid from being publicly highlighted on the world map. To me, a big red spot on the map showing claimed territory to anyone looking at it, is like a big red marker saying "raid me".   In dense populated locations or safe zones, this would not be a concern. But what about the people who move away from the crowds that want to claim land? It becomes near impossible to hide your base or rare resources from people if your claimed territory can be easily located by anyone who holds a map.  Imagine if you moved to another world and within a day of claiming land there was a large group that just instantly found you because of your owned map marker. It would be very disheartening to continue the game if someone did not understand how they were so quickly found. 

 

This is all guess work to say the least, but without clarification on the limits of the TU, it is hard to say what can be possible or impossible.



I am use to playing space engineers where land cannot be claimed. So I understand the necessary parts of hiding your property if you do wish for someone else to steal it. SE lacks any form of a TU therefor it was never a concern someone else could take my land and creations from under my feet by merely placing a TU and claiming ownership. I have not played DU yet and much of this is speculation, but without knowing the limits of the TU more and more concerning thoughts of grieving come to mind. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never consider claiming land which was not claimed before grieving.  If some builds on a territory that has not been claimed, they should accept the risk of losing their constructs.  If someone is prudent, they would only build either on land they already own or where they have permission to build from the owner.  Letting players effectively claim land by building on it would defeat the purpose of the territory units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 8:00 AM, Ben Fargo said:

I would never consider claiming land which was not claimed before grieving.  If some builds on a territory that has not been claimed, they should accept the risk of losing their constructs.

Letting players effectively claim land by building on it would defeat the purpose of the territory units.

This plays exactly into my concerns, if you do not wish to be found by someone the only option is to not claim territory because claimed territory displays your location on the map for everyone to see, therefore you place yourself as a target by highlighting yourself on the map. Additionally TUs are very expensive and it is impractical to have one placed at every location of interest or even impossible for a new player starting out, that cannot yet afford one. So how would it be justifiable if someone just plants a TU in the grid of your constructs thus gaining instant ownership over them because you do not wish to be displayed on the map or cannot afford a TU?

As for "players effectively claim land by building on it would defeat the purpose of the territory units." this is why I mentioned an X amount would determine the cause in preventing the TU from claiming ownership of a grid. This X amount would serve as a buffer from any would be griever strong arming ownership over your property in a game abusing manner. That X amount could be a certain mass of constructs or x amount of powered constructs contained within the grid. If the grid has less then the determined amount of constructs or powered constructs the TU will still be able to claim ownership of the grid. It would be ridiculous for someone to merely build a small block and thus prevent TU grid ownership. 

 

16 hours ago, Vulcore said:

That page is the reason I made this thread. In execution through watching the dev gameplay, the TU is only designed to block out grieving once it is placed. What we do not know, is if the TU can be used for grieving by what I stated above and that is being placed over someone else's constructs on a grid not yet claimed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people call this behaviour griefing when it's not?

 

If you choose to build on a territory and not claim it that is your choice for starters. If another player/org chooses to then claim that territory it could potentially be griefing if they would choose to do so purely harass you as a player which obviously could be a reason but only one of many reasons to claim the territory. I'm really puzzled why I keep seeing these posts on people basically trying to ignore and/or vilifying basic game mechanics in favour of them not having to take any chances/run any risk while grossly overthinking the possible negative effects to them in the process.

 

DU as a game will be all about cause and effect; you build without claiming territory and you take the chance of someone else claiming and thus hindering your progress or you claim territory which could potentially open you up to attack when someone else wants the same territory. There is no such thing as free in DU, everything will have consequence and honestly, if that is something you are not willing to accept then this game may not be for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that claiming a tile will instantly give you access to all constructs on that tile, thus possibly griefing other players who built themselves a batcave.

 

I rather think if a tile is claimed then the owner can use the RDMS system to configure access to his orgs constructs and basic rights for everyone like mining and building. So it may be possible that EVERYONE can still mine and build there, if the RDMS of the TCU allow it. Or that org can decide that only members of the org are able to mine.

 

So it's up to MrHideout to decide if that's ok for him: if someone claims the TCU he might not be able to dig anymore, but he certainly can't lose his constructs immediatly. that wouldn't make much sense imho.

 

On the subject of instant intel on claimed tiles: I'm completely with you there.

I would rather see a more dynamic and interesting system like:

- maybe scan the planet to know if ANY tiles are claimed (linked to skills, distance, ... but don't know WHERE those tiles are)

- maybe need to put down special antennas/radars/scanners on crucial spots around the planet to scann it completely to know where those claimed tiles are

- maybe some kind of directional scanner (linked with skills, distance....) to know the general direction of a TCU, but never completely pinpointing it

- maybe ....

 

there are lots of better and more engaging ways to deal with this - free intel is never good in a MMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider placing a territory unit the equivalent of registering a deed in real life, so knowing which tiles are owned should be public knowledge that anyone can just  by see by looking at the map.  I do know know about the rest of the world, but in Wisconsin, the government has an online map where someone can click on any parcel of land and see who owns it.   It would be unrealistic if the DU map did not show which territories were owned.

 

Having the territory marked on the map will make hiding ineffective, but I think discouraging that will benefit the game.   I would prefer to have most structures out where everyone can see them, not buried underground.  If territory units are expensive, that will encourage players to join together to buy one, which is also good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to the views I am reading here. The general consensus is, if person A. finds a lovely place to build a home or a rare mineral location and decides to build a large, expensive, and none movable construct there, before having the funds to purchase a TU. Then person B. who already owns a TU, can decide to claim the land from person A. because person B. will own all rights to build or evict whomever is within their claimed territory. Leaving person A. with a construct they can no longer build and possibly now with a giant energy shield around their construct.  This would be considered "fair" game and intended game mechanics from what I am reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players should know the risks of building in unsecure areas.

 

I doubt placing a TU would change anything about the permissions on existing constructs, perhaps just prevent digging and the placement of new constructs. So they could disassemble and move out of there at least. The person claiming the territory should be responsible for removing other players by force also, not just by claiming the territory. And they should also be at risk of the player just destroying their territory unit.

 

The only other issue I see in that situation:

- Person claiming the territory finds the entrances to existing underground base and closes them off. Perhaps weapons could damage terrain enough to make a tunnel out, but should probably be much slower than normal digging tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geronimo553 said:

So according to the views I am reading here. The general consensus is, if person A. finds a lovely place to build a home or a rare mineral location and decides to build a large, expensive, and none movable construct there, before having the funds to purchase a TU. Then person B. who already owns a TU, can decide to claim the land from person A. because person B. will own all rights to build or evict whomever is within their claimed territory. Leaving person A. with a construct they can no longer build and possibly now with a giant energy shield around their construct.  This would be considered "fair" game and intended game mechanics from what I am reading.

Yes that's fair game. It's a gamble really imho. Risk it, or go safe and build a TCU first. With 50k+ tiles on a planet it's really unlikely though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geronimo553 said:

So according to the views I am reading here. The general consensus is, if person A. finds a lovely place to build a home or a rare mineral location and decides to build a large, expensive, and none movable construct there, before having the funds to purchase a TU. Then person B. who already owns a TU, can decide to claim the land from person A. because person B. will own all rights to build or evict whomever is within their claimed territory. Leaving person A. with a construct they can no longer build and possibly now with a giant energy shield around their construct.  This would be considered "fair" game and intended game mechanics from what I am reading.

Yes, I agree with that completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, geronimo553 said:

So according to the views I am reading here. The general consensus is,

Yes, that is how this works and guess what..

 

You decide to build a nice little shed off of the highway for easy access to work without buying a deed to the land and without permission from local authorities, then someone comes along who wants to build a mall there.. Guess what happens..

 

I really do not understand how someone can think what you describe is strange, unwanted or anything but how mechanics work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree on that, It is mechanics and close to real world logic. anything you build on unclaimed land has a risk that the territory is taken by someone else.

 

If you are also a person who made enemies, the risk is even higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm well if this is the general accepted consensus, I agree on several points being made such as building on unclaimed land. So I will plan my future strategies accordingly. 

However I still do not agree on the notion that any claimed land appears on a public map for all to view. I believe that should be the option of the owner to decide or to only be displayed to their organization. By default it should be turned on, yes. But there should definitely be the option to turn off this highlight from public view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on that, Its strange to have claimed lands visible on a map so you can just look for a place to rob. Probably the idea is that its simpler this way to find free land but the opposite will happen and people will be under attack. Your solution is simple but effective, just turn it off, like a beacon on a map, turn it on if you want to be seen, or Off if you just want to be left alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have anything against making ownership private (up to a certain range), but I haven't seen any real convincing reason yet.

The advantage of not using a TCU would be to remain hidden. I just like the idea of having pros and cons for each option rather than trying to have the best of both worlds.

And if you can turn off your ownership broadcast, that means your enemies can turn off theirs also.

Share this post


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

 

You do know you can just look up who owns land in the real world too right? That is not private information.

You know when you view a piece of land you do not instantly know who owns it right? You keep making these "real world" comparisons as if they hold any salt.  Sure in real life there are ways to obtain documentation of property rights. However real life is not so straight forward by a be all end all as you suggest; and real life does not have glowing property lines when you look at your latest gps map in the middle of the desert on a seperate world where no one yet lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://maps.sco.wisc.edu/Parcels/

 

That is a real life map that shows who owns a parcel of land just by clicking on it.  Many of them have been split, but in places you can see the grid of squares that were the original parcels it was divided into before it was settled.  DU does not need to do things the same way they happen in real life, but the comparisons do show what is reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's only in the us though. You can get parcel maps from nearly all countries, but here you'll never get the owner Name for free.  You have to play for it and tell the authorities why you need to know that name. 

 

As geronimo said, it makes sense for DU to show basic information (like the parcel eg  hex) but imho it's way more entertaining if you don't get free Intel on tiles 

Share this post


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

 

You do know you can just look up who owns land in the real world too right? That is not private information.

the real wold is no open PvP zone ;) well...not in my neighbourhood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i agree that the information about where is place of hex that got claim shouldnt be view from a basic map, Intel always a critical resource to the surviving in wildness (remember before the modern a detail map used to be a military information because it show the graphic and the road of area ).

 

17 hours ago, blazemonger said:

That is not private information

That is private, it not private now day because of globalization and modern thought. And people dont shot other people (usually not ) if they have land conflict.

 

But in the end the risk for being claim should still there because it is wildness after all but i think a solution:

Instead instantly grant you the ownership of the land, it should take time to claim depend on how many construct in the area that is not own by the one place TU. So that people inside that hex will have time to prepare :

1. Move your stuff to somewhere.

2. Trade with the owner of the TU so that you can still live there.

3.FIGHT ...

Share this post


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

the real wold is no open PvP zone ;) well...not in my neighbourhood

While I can see that, since iI believe t is not NQ's vision to make DU into a FFA pewpew simulator, they want to create a civilization and community building game, that is not really the argument here.

 

While I could agree it would not be good if the map gives you detail on what is going on in a claimed territory, showing whether it is claimed or not I see no issue with at all.

 

 

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

×