Jump to content

A thought about organization war & pvp


DuskLight

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, DuskLight said:

- PvP based on organization war, rather than free-for-all PvP
- Implement war exhaustion mechanics to prevent one Org from going zerg

I think I know where you're going with this but if you don't mind could you please elaborate by going into more detail? Just want to be sure there's no misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Deintus said:

I think I know where you're going with this but if you don't mind could you please elaborate by going into more detail? Just want to be sure there's no misunderstanding.

What I said is as far as I had thought. I wanted to put the idea out there and see where it goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if there was a "politics" talent tree that governed war mechanics. War exhaustion pool size, regeneration speed...etc
We'd also need tangible reasons to form alliances, say a small bonus to war stats or something of the sorts.
 

11 minutes ago, XKentX said:

Limit personal cores to 2

Maybe limit Organization cores or gate them behind the above mentioned talent tree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DuskLight said:

- PvP based on organization war, rather than free-for-all PvP
- Implement war exhaustion mechanics to prevent one Org from going zerg

That's why safe zones are vital, how many groups can defend themselves from a 100+ ppl invasion?

Also mind that there are games like rust that often use limitations for group sizes, and besides that always keep in mind that you can be assaulted while you're offline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DuskLight said:

- PvP based on organization war, rather than free-for-all PvP
- Implement war exhaustion mechanics to prevent one Org from going zerg

Sure why not. NQ doesn't give a damn about kickstarter goals anymore so maybe just change ffa pvp too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my own beliefs, but thinking Sanctuary should always be a safe zone regardless of where this discussion goes. That is where new people are learning, tutorials are staged, and in the case of "total eradication" of one side, where they loose all their tiles, there will always be one place to attempt to rebuild. Since you can only own one tile there anyways, should be easy. Lore behind it is the ai that brought us here considers that new cradle of new humanity as well.

 

Afraid I disagree with a 2 core limit. (I assume you mean dynamic?? Or do you mean any type) Its already locked behind talents. But if you do a 2 top limit unlocking with joining an org which unlocks a type of talent tree for more, that would make sense with giving people reasons to join orgs.

 

One thing that concerns me is defense while offline. Even for small orgs. It seems you should be able to build automated defenses... We have types of that in 2020... 900 years later in space makes sense it would be researchable, unlockable, buildable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Deintus said:

One thing that concerns me is defense while offline. Even for small orgs. It seems you should be able to build automated defenses... We have types of that in 2020... 900 years later in space makes sense it would be researchable, unlockable, buildable.

I agree that offline defense is going to be a tricky thing to balance. I know that open world pvp is a fun idea but for a voxel game where people sometimes want to kickback and build, there needs to be some sort of risk vs reward that would make someone weigh the two first  before they commit to a fight.  Frankly, I don't see how FFA pvp with zero rules could succeed in civilization building game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really no different then a PvP flag unless I'm misunderstanding the OP. I would be very sad to see NQ go full carebear like this so that only PvP is consensual "wars" between orgs. Even non consensual PvP being limited to orgs would be a mistake imo, it would be gamed hard by people simply using non org territories for anything of value. 

 

If you are worried about some org going zerg and taking over the solar system , then people should come together to attack said overpowered org / alliance. If there are not enough players able to then we live under the thumb of the successful said org/alliance till they collapse under their own weight or another alliance breaks them. Warfare in games, victory generally boils down to he who has the mostest wins , it's an unfortunate reality. Put in all the limits you want but in the end if territory can be acquired and held, the bigger the org the more influence they will have no matter what 'mechanics' you try and put in their way like war timers etc. They will just use alts and alt orgs etc to get around them and zerg anyway.

 

The  only effect trying to limit big orgs from being big orgs or able to operate as freely as they want with such ambitions is prevent smaller orgs from having a fighting chance. Seems like a paradox I know, but remember big orgs have more people to work with. You cannot overcome this with some game mechanic and in the end such limits will only hurt the smaller groups with less numbers to overcome the same limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xennial said:

This is really no different then a PvP flag unless I'm misunderstanding the OP. I would be very sad to see NQ go full carebear like this so that only PvP is consensual "wars" between orgs. Even non consensual PvP being limited to orgs would be a mistake imo, it would be gamed hard by people simply using non org territories for anything of value. 

pvp is fun and all. My concern is maintaining a stable economy in a complete anarchy. It's never worked before, what would make it work now? I'm curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2020 at 1:10 PM, XKentX said:

Limit personal cores to 2, make declaration one sided and war to allow shooting in pve zone.

 

There can even be a system that sends target corporat... Organization an email stating that hostilities will start in 24 hours...

 

If you want to kill the game then sure.. do this.

 

There is no such thing as a PVE zone, it's called a safe zone and while I would be the first to agree that NQ pretty much solidifying the Alioth/Madis/Thades triangle as one huge safezone was not a good idea the suggestion above is very much a few bridges too far. NQ should not copy the EVE wardec mechanics which is basically what you suggest.

 

Outside of the safe zones NQ will implement a system which I expect will trigger a timer once an attempt is made to attack a TU on a claimed tile and if the attacker is successful they have the choice to press on to any adjacent tile and repeat the process. That is pretty much what NQ has said Territory Warfare will be like.

 

The whole concept of combat in DU is geared towards resolving conflict more than raging troops of aggressors and it will be both costly and hard to achieve as well as required more than a few pirates or a loose band of brothers to make it work. Also at every step, the mechanic will favor the defenders over the attackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx for talking this out btw. I think I have a better understanding of my original thought. 
My question is this, if pvp come with no consequences, and there is no incentive for peace, then what's the point? 
Should pvp come with consequences or do you think that life will balance itself out somehow, given enough time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Combat as in conflict between orgs/groups/communities will always have consequences. The incidental solo activities of rogues elements and pirates possibly less so but hey do not really play a role in the overall story of the game IMO. That doe snot make them less viable or the gameplay less relevant for those involved but they do not really affect the bigger picture. All of that IMO obviously..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blazemonger said:

 

Combat as in conflict between orgs/groups/communities will always have consequences. The incidental solo activities of rogues elements and pirates possibly less so but hey do not really play a role in the overall story of the game IMO. That doe snot make them less viable or the gameplay less relevant for those involved but they do not really affect the bigger picture. All of that IMO obviously..

Maybe, in time, orgs will become towns, then cities. Getting to that point will be a blood bath though. I can see how ffa pvp could work. well, that answers that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DuskLight said:

Maybe, in time, orgs will become towns, then cities. Getting to that point will be a blood bath though. I can see how ffa pvp could work. well, that answers that.

The way JC described making 'inner' TU's unattackable by forcing attackers to work from the outside in will encourage this behavior of forming towns/cities/nations on planets. Perhaps individuals will be able to declare their tile allied to a 'nation' of tiles thus letting smaller players / orgs band together with larger presences on planets for safety and mutual benefit. We will see how it gets implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Xennial said:

The way JC described making 'inner' TU's unattackable by forcing attackers to work from the outside in will encourage this behavior of forming towns/cities/nations on planets. Perhaps individuals will be able to declare their tile allied to a 'nation' of tiles thus letting smaller players / orgs band together with larger presences on planets for safety and mutual benefit. We will see how it gets implemented.

Allow me to take rust as an example (which actually fits in this environment): you can build a base as big as you want, but the bigger you go the more it will cost to maintain it. Ofc more ppl can supply more resources, but there's a point where is no longer worth to have a base with let's say 20 TC (tool cupboard, similar to our territory control unit), because the attackers will always go for the shortest route to the core.

Now if we go back to DU, sure you can claim a shitload of tiles, but as you add layers upon layers an attacker will always go straight to your middle tile, while the defender need to sustain the cost of every layer.

Alliances might be a huge benefit, a single org could be responsible for a small section of a bigger "town".

 

Also wandering around won't be as easy as it is now, so mining expedition with escort ships might become a thing. NQ could work on the mission system to make it work as an hub, atm it seems to be intended for a 1to1 relationship (eg: need a lift from A to B) in the future it might  be possible to recruit more ppl for the same mission ("need n ships to protect my fleet from ion to alioth, paying 1mil quantas each").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Fra119 said:

Also wandering around won't be as easy as it is now, so mining expedition with escort ships might become a thing. NQ could work on the mission system to make it work as an hub, atm it seems to be intended for a 1to1 relationship (eg: need a lift from A to B) in the future it might  be possible to recruit more ppl for the same mission ("need n ships to protect my fleet from ion to alioth, paying 1mil quantas each").

This. Personally I am all in for a player dominated/driven mission board. This opens up possibilities for smaller orgs/towns to hit larger ones when resources/people are low.

 

To elaborate:

Org A just mined more T4 than they can carry with what they have. Set out a contract for haulers to carry for them. Say Org B wants to disrupt this for an upcoming attack on Orgs A factory. Org B could contract for X amount for every shipment stolen/destroyed. This could be expanded upon. This is were the solo player could shine, with little affiliation with any org. They could potentially help both sides as long as whatever rep counter we have in place isn't tipped too far.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will never work unless they adpot factions to make it possible to have huge wars. Otherwise the Mega Orgs are going take take whats left they havent stolen yet. This will never work until there is multiple solar systems with a solar system to fight over and colonize between. There is just too much random pvp to ever amount to anything meaningful. Its just broken, imbalanced, and likely 25% of the player population can even engage in PvP since if you do anything else you are screwed. Without a good infrastructure to make pvp possible at large scales or to allow each side to build up to fight in the empty solar system then all this is pretty pointless since if there is no limits or MegaOrgs just roll over everyone and take or destroy all people''s stuff its over.

 

I dont know about others but our 3 man skeleton crew lost big with losing all our fleet before destrucive elements came out, then our industry knee capped, and we managed to climb our way out of a pretty big hole. The only thing we have is our base. If we lose that we might try to pull back together 1 more time. But once the base is gone we are pretty much done. We have no interest in joining a MegaOrg.

 

Fundamental core things need to change with this game and PvP. when 75% of the population probably does not engauge in any PvP whatsoever because this restrictive Talent system just puts them at the losing end every patch while PvP becomes the only way to play. How long do they thing it is going to take before nobody mines, processes, or makes anything if it costs millions or hundreds of millions if not billions to set up to be lost in like 5 minuites and probably took hundreds of collective hours to build up. How long do thing think people will stick around?

 

I would love to PvP, fly, mine, craft, etc if the game allowed for anything higher than 1-2 multi classes that didnt revolve around things like because I use 40% more of my brain on engine thrust vs just everything being some kind of put down everyone can use it pretty much forces you miner to pilot to crafting to industry to PvP. You can deviate but when the only real playstyle is PVP in terms of easy gameplay, lowest Talent investment with pure profit for a handful of ammo for potentially hundreds of millions in minuites of work vs what it took everyone else there is no point in doing anything. Especially when most of the higher tier resources have been stip mined into oblivion having not had to contend with territory wars to become all rich and powerful to wage wars, no PvP defenses or ai turrets for freighters, and just broken PvP on top of it is a lot to ask 75% of the population of this game to deal with. Sure its a PvP game and all but the way its set up a majority of people are on the recieving end to a handful of mega orges that own everything already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blazemonger said:

There is no such thing as a PVE zone, it's called a safe zone and while I would be the first to agree that NQ pretty much solidifying the Alioth/Madis/Thades triangle as one huge safezone was not a good idea

What is wrong with giving players that have no interests in pvp a zone they can toy around in?

Said zone being only 3 planets out of 12, the remaining 9 planets and perhaps other solar systems can be free for all, seems like a trade in pvp's favor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kurosawa said:

What is wrong with giving players that have no interests in pvp a zone they can toy around in?

Said zone being only 3 planets out of 12, the remaining 9 planets and perhaps other solar systems can be free for all, seems like a trade in pvp's favor

 

 

That's a valid point.

 

One thing for sure, none of this is possible anytime soon anyways.

 

I think the fact that NQs vision of this game being "all things to all players" is still very obscure on how they are going to accomplish it. I think this was mentioned earlier, but we will need more than one solar system anyway for this to become truly meaningful in the context that is in this post.

 

NQ has still yet to properly gauge or poll their current player base, and while I agree from my limited perspective it does appear that pvp seems to be the minority, its pretty plain some form of it is planned because : territory warfare.

 So why not think of ways for both to coexist in a single game?

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...