Jump to content
NQ-Nyzaltar

DevBlog: Territory Control

Recommended Posts

I personally don't like what's proposed. Just give us the freedom to build and be done with it. Anything else just seems really contrived and gamey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Landmark, We have build sites.  they limited us to a max of 8 of these.  Each build site is 525 voxel block wide x525 voxel blocks deep x450 voxel block height.

 

now on each build site we once had to pay a weekly maintenance on each build site.

 

I would not mind having to a rent/fee  in game to maintain a hex for an arkified base, town, starport that was pvp proof.

 

I may have missed it but how big is each hex? I know from 1k above to the center downwards, but how many voxels, is each side of the hex?

 

I would also like to know if there will be a buffer zone between me and my neighbors?

Also if there is a buffer zone in or around my HEX, if I am able to grab more hexes surrounding my main hex to build a bigger spaceport, will the buffer zones merge to allow me to actually expand?

 

I am Thinking of something like Mos Eisily, small town with shops, vendors, bars and a starport.

 

So depending on the HEX size, I could then calculate how many surrounding HEXS I may need.

 

I dont want to have another RUST, ARK game where I need to log in, rebuild and replenish every day.  I stopped playing them mostly to players who like to raid my bases when I am off line.

 

But I also dont want to see it like SWG once was with abandoned homes, buildings and facilties littering the land all over.  H1Z1 PVE has a crap load of crapshacks as well, but they do have a decay which makes them disappear if not maintained.

 

But please do not make it purely PVP. I want a safe area to build from that is my own and not in the starter ark areas.  I can understand making it hard to create this area. but once done, if I don't maintain it, sure, but I'm raided every night, that is going to suck and make me want to quit.

 

Flaging oneself for PVP or having open pvp areas is fine.  But I would like the option like in the old SWG.

 

BTW this is great for making in game movies.  non flagged players cant be killed while filming.

 

There will almost certainly be safe areas other than the arkship secure area.  The question is exactly how they will be implemented.  My opinion is they should be isolated freeports - no territory control within or near them.  If you want a bigger area to yourself then you should have to defend it as part of an organisation.

 

The territories are 1km.  I think that means hexes of 1km per side, ~2.16sq km.  There was a thread where Nyzaltar gave a rough idea of the size of the voxels but it's been buried and I can't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all seems overly complicated. To the regular MMO player I would guess to them it would be a steep learning curve and most wouldn't bother. Sitting here reading all of this to me seems highly complex and for me I probably wouldn't participate in it. Does this system reach into space as well as far as owning a space station of outpost? Would this be applied to regions of space?

 

Territory control will not be something everyone needs to know the details of.  Even if you're a member of an organisation that owns or wants to own territory, only the leaders will need to understand the intricacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will almost certainly be safe areas other than the arkship secure area.  The question is exactly how they will be implemented.  My opinion is they should be isolated freeports - no territory control within or near them.  If you want a bigger area to yourself then you should have to defend it as part of an organisation.

 

The territories are 1km.  I think that means hexes of 1km per side, ~2.16sq km.  There was a thread where Nyzaltar gave a rough idea of the size of the voxels but it's been buried and I can't find it.

 

I think what's been written is that if you want a non-PvP area you have to upgrade your claimed hexagon from a Territory unit to a Arksite, which will act the same as the zone around the arkship, i don't think i've read any plans to have non-pvp area anywhere else but at arksites

 

Arksites will be very expensive to do, requiring entire empires to assist in doing it, and will prevent any aggression on your claimed haxagon.

 

There has been mention of finding abandoned arksites around the universe, which give another incentive for explorers. But in the post the certainty of it coming to the game wasn't 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's been written is that if you want a non-PvP area you have to upgrade your claimed hexagon from a Territory unit to a Arksite, which will act the same as the zone around the arkship, i don't think i've read any plans to have non-pvp area anywhere else but at arksites

 

Arksites will be very expensive to do, requiring entire empires to assist in doing it, and will prevent any aggression on your claimed haxagon.

 

There has been mention of finding abandoned arksites around the universe, which give another incentive for explorers. But in the post the certainty of it coming to the game wasn't 100%

 

The last time Nyz spoke about arkification it hadn't yet been set in stone.  They may by now have decided on a mechanism but if they have it has been fully described.  As I said, my opinion is that territory control by player organisations and arkification of territories should be kept as separate from one another as possible.  Claimed territories, in my opinion, should always be fair game.

 

The devblog on builder tools mentions rare alien relic sites which can be activated to create an arkified zone, but again, the mechanics are not yet confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time Nyz spoke about arkification it hadn't yet been set in stone.  They may by now have decided on a mechanism but if they have it has been fully described.  As I said, my opinion is that territory control by player organisations and arkification of territories should be kept as separate from one another as possible.  Claimed territories, in my opinion, should always be fair game.

 

The devblog on builder tools mentions rare alien relic sites which can be activated to create an arkified zone, but again, the mechanics are not yet confirmed.

 

I think there should be some territory restriction, like if you want to place territories right next to each other the cost increases or something, otherwise you could have a organisation claim a nice big sphere around your area preventing you from expanding. or maybe even claiming around the initial arksite. going to war would be interesting if you could just plop down a bunch of territory right outside your enemies main base :)... ha.

 

I hope they do arkification sites and the like, it would create little spaceports around the universe for people to move to... safe zone to safe zone until they find the right area to settle down and claim as their own..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be some territory restriction, like if you want to place territories right next to each other the cost increases or something, otherwise you could have a organisation claim a nice big sphere around your area preventing you from expanding. or maybe even claiming around the initial arksite. going to war would be interesting if you could just plop down a bunch of territory right outside your enemies main base :)... ha.

 

I hope they do arkification sites and the like, it would create little spaceports around the universe for people to move to... safe zone to safe zone until they find the right area to settle down and claim as their own..

 

I think cost increases doesn't really help much, it just means that the poor can't do it, but the rich can.  It needs to be hard limits distances between claimed and arkified territories because the two should not interfere with each other.  Plopping arkified territory on the doorstep of your enemy territories, or your own, is gaming the system.

 

I agree completely that safe zones are needed though.  I don't know if you've read it but I laid out a simple idea in post #22 of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually starting to think that the concept of arkification as presented here is not a good idea at all. I do not remember now, but I think the Arkships supposed to be two kilometers long? So there should be enough space inside for creative uses. I am not ready yet but I will expand the subject of estate protection in one of my future topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion for "arkified" stuff, let it be safe, but not forever. Maybe its on a month timer, maybe 3 months etc. but it should be safe for X then open up to attack for Y. Maybe 3 months of safety and a week of conquerability. That gives the players PLENTY of time to either build up to prepare or clear out if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion for "arkified" stuff, let it be safe, but not forever. Maybe its on a month timer, maybe 3 months etc. but it should be safe for X then open up to attack for Y. Maybe 3 months of safety and a week of conquerability. That gives the players PLENTY of time to either build up to prepare or clear out if need be.

 

The problem with this is you are forgetting newcomers. Players will constantly be joining the game, from release until 5 decades from now (hopefully right?). So you have to have a permanent safe spot for them to spawn. Think HiSec in Eve. It is assumed that venturing out give you access to more and better resources though, giving incentive to older players to leave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your forgetting that they won't be able to attack out of the arksite either as it removes all PvP in the area, it is simply a 'very expensive' option to claim the territory permanently. 

 

Maybe instead of changing how the arksites work, change how they are created. Put a limitation to the amount of days you need to wait before turning it into a arksite?... Then someone can't just 'plop' down next to your territory a protected area just for them. They would have to first claim the area with a TU which you can destroy and then wait for the amount of days required to turn it into a Arksite... Given that it could also have a limitation of distance away from all other arksite so you can't chain them and claim an entire planet, you can only claim 1 every 20-30 zones. 

 

I like that idea. Maybe add the option where you can't create constructs that have military value inside these sites either, so you can't have a base of operations that is undestroyable?

 

nora,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-PvP zones need to exist, thats not really a question.

 

I think the main problem would be player controlled/created infinite arkified zones. Having player created zones have an upkeep cost would help prevent them popping up everywhere. With the dev's intention for them to be individual player safe zones the cost shouldn't be something extravagant but just require a small amount of effort to maintain.

For example powering your arkification unit may require a fairly common ore that can be mined just about anywhere. It could be taken a little farther and have the ore be found anywhere EXCEPT inside arkified zones. That way you have to leave your safe area every now and again to get some more ore to keep yourself safe. This could cause players to set up blockades attempting to prevent people getting ore to maintain the arkified zone.

 

If the devs do allow larger organizational arkified zones most groups would just stockpile obscene amounts of the required ore effectively making sieges impossible. Perhaps some type of increasing cost based on whether the zone is 'under attack.'

 

As far as non-player created safe zones, I feel that multiple ark ships would be a better thing than a worse thing. Possible have the option to suicide and be born at any ark ship. You would leave your stuff behind, but could play with your friends where you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I had an Idea while reading/scanning through these posts. And I did scan through all of them quickly and I might have missed it so I'm sorry if I'm repeating someone here, but here goes:

 

Instead of creating Tokens and having to pay directly for an ark-tiles it could be done indirectly, in order for one organization to have one ark-tile they would have to have a number of other hexes. But then everyone would simply put their ark-hex towards the most immediate threat to have an immortal stronghold. So let's say that in order to make one field arkified there must at least be 2 tiles owned by the same party as the ark-tile in between it and a unclaimed or foreign tile. I quickly drew up a map to find out how many tiles would be needed to have one ark-tile, the answer: 19 including the ark-tile.

 

On to the next problem: What if i own the planet? I could just spam it's entirety with ark-tiles. Fine, we can solve that too, no more than 3 ark-fields can touch (a city with a 1 km radius would be quite small, so i think this is acceptable) if this number is reached there may not be another ark-tile for say 25 tiles.

 

This creates small cities and trade hubs which are safe areas for anyone to build in. It also makes it possible to invade a completely claimed planet easily via the non-ark-tiles. It also creates targets for military campaigns.

 

Speaking of military, how do i conquer an ark-tile? Easy, conquer a tile within a two tile radius of that ark-tile, the ark-tile no longer meets the conditions and automatically looses it's ark-status.

 

Now of course a builder inside such a ark-tile would want to have enough time to load up his ship with whatever valuables he has and leave. So maybe a system could be added that tiles closer to a ark-tile take longer to hack/conquer in order to give the citizens of the city time to leave. Or a ark-tile countdown could be implemented which gives everyone some time to evacuate before the ark-status is lost.

 

Furthermore, in order to ensure the builders safety they can invoke asylum (only possible in an ark-tile which is counting down) which basically safeguards them and their property until the end of the ark-tile countdown. Like this they can relocate to a different part of the planet or change planets entirely without being robbed or killed in the process. However during asylum they are unable to use weapons. Otherwise this system could be exploited.

 

This method of ark-tiling also has pro's for the city or trade hub itself. If a city expands out of the 3-ark-tile limit the inner parts of it rise in property-value and a upper-class district and lower-class district would naturally form, which  could add to the RPG aspect of the game. (I also just thought, that it would be cool to be able to group tiles with at least one ark-tile together and give them a name which pops up on mini-maps as city names)

 

So thats that, i really hope this helps  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arkifying is something to strife for as a PvE player in a PvP world. Which is good, from a PvE players point of view. ;)  Every builder should be able to concentrate on his work without worrying about sudden attacks. And it would be fitting for a sandbox game, if fans of PvE gaming could create places of 'peace' for themselves. Especially in teams.

 

My first thoughts have been about percentages of tiles a planet should allow to be arkified, but does it really matter? In fact, the starting planet of Dual Universe will first be the pinnacle of actions but soon be nearly forgotten by the seasoned players, which move on, colonize planets, systems, even sectors of space. What does it matter to them how much space on Alioth is arktified and how? Really, it doesn't matter. In fact it would be more enjoyable for new players not to be ganked by veterans after the first months of this MMO have been played at all. So does it matter, how much of a planet or even of all planets have been arkified?

 

Yes and no. It does not matter, if Alioth is fully secure at one point, but it does matter, if all colonized planets would be more and more arkified as the game moves on. I don't like the idea to be able to destroy arkified regions. Imagine large guilds/organisations which will eventually exist. They will quite easily build up the resources to destroy save zones, where they deem it fit to do. This is near ganking on a big scale.

 

What about arkification batteries? Imagine artifacts, which are able to arkify a tile for 3 months(to put a number) and have to be replaced to stay a save zone? ( What if the same artifacts could protect small vehicles for a day or an hour, depending on tech and size? ) With arkifying a tile, each player could work on his own 'housing' and if the player ceases to play, its free to shoot at after the given time. The arkification batteries would become an iconic trade good in the game. An upkeep, a safekeep, and 'each one wanna have' luxury. The devs could control the means to find and hoard them and could adjust the number of save zones just by modifying the droprate of the batteries.

 

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the concerns brought up is that arkified territory could become a haven for indestructible military production, which could lead to defensive strategies that would be nearly impossible to counter.  I think an easy fix for that would be to place certain restrictions on what can be produced in an arkified area.  Arkified territories could be limited strictly to social/economic/diplomatic endeavors, while the production and storage of military constructs would be limited to PvP enabled areas.  There could be restrictions not only on players who have recently engaged in PvP, but also armed constructs as well.  Making arkified areas strict weapons-free zones would prevent abuse as a staging or regrouping point.  Civilian constructs and production only.

 

And while an outright restriction might feel artificial during gameplay, it could be explained away with in-game lore.  Perhaps the advanced technology behind the Arkification "token" includes a built-in defensive system that can target certain players and constructs who violate its protective function.  With this in mind, perhaps recent PvP players or armed constructs entering an arkification zone regardless of affiliation would be progressively damaged after a warning message:

 

"WARNING: YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE DEFENSIVE PERIMETER OF THE [insert custom place name here] ARK.  YOUR WEAPONS HAVE BEEN DETECTED AND ARK DEFENSES HAVE BEEN ACTIVATED.  10... 9... 8... 7..."

 

This would prevent access without feeling entirely like an artificial game convention.  However, even this might be exploited if constructs aren't destroyed quickly enough (e.g. using kamikaze tactics).  Maybe it should just function like a giant force field that repels weapons fire, certain PvP players, and armed constructs.  Instead of warning you once you enter it, maybe it should warn you once you approach within a certain distance and display a graphical indication on your HUD showing the boundaries of the arkification area.  If you or your construct won't be affected by it, there would be no warning or visual indicator to clutter up your view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I should probably copy this thought over into the actual devblog thread concerning the topic:

 

The only potential compromise I can think of to accomodate both Arkified safe zones and not ruining the immersion of territory control is if there was a physical "Ark node" that generated the "safe" part of safe zones and prevented PvP and/or destruction.

 

By disabling or destroying this physical Ark Node, the territory tile would no longer be an Arkified region and would be subject to damage, destruction, and PvP as any other territory would. Given the tangible existence of the Node, the owners of that Arkified area would naturally have to have the Node well hidden and well protected to prevent anyone from disabling it, and by extension, the Arkified area.

 

Alternatively, Ark Nodes could be hacked (some way or another) and have their functionality changed. For instance, ownership of the Ark Node could be transferred to the offensive party (the hacker), or perhaps the Node could be programmed to protect only a certain portion of the area.

 

More on this later...maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ability to arkify a place should exist.

 

I think the ability to dearkify a place should exist.

 

I think a place must be built up to some high level... meaning supporting a significant number of players and constructs and defenses for them before it becomes eligible.

 

I think there should be limits where if the area drops below those limits the arkification gets deactivated... population could be one... there could be shield generators or something that require upkeep... or can be attacked and repaired... So that if a massive war breaks out or an alliance falls apart and a place is abandoned... or an invading force spends months whittling away at the generators while the defenders try to keep them repaired (cause there should be several) and end up succeeding then the safe zone should go away.

 

It should be hard to set them up. I think 1 week is too short... 1 month sounds better.

 

It should be hard to take them away... but possible.  Like 6 months.  maybe even 1 year to take one down.  even without people actively defending it.

 

 

If you can build something in a persistent world then it should also be able to decay away or be destroyed.   And you should be able to count on it being there even after a few days away from the game. 

 

 

Heck a fun thing to do and possibly a job... is going around blowing up peoples old abandoned buildings to clear the land for the new owners plans.  Or going back (10 years later) to a planet that was bustling at launch but was abandoned 5 years into the game and rummaging through  the ruins of a past player civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arkified areas really are a double edged sword. As long as there are game mechanics that allow for "invincible areas", there will also be ways for these to be exploited by PVP, whether it be through shipments or strategic value. The alternative is no truly safe zones for people to reside in resulting in frustration of those without any form of defense. Both options cannot function together, leading to the conclusion that they have to be separated entirely while still providing benefits to each other. 

 

In order to find this compromise between the two functionalities we need to consider the effects of every involved variable and every condition that must be met. So far as I see it the conditions are:

1) The entire universe needs to fit the grand story of the rise and fall of civilizations

2) Non PVP individuals need a way to safely perform actions without the constant threat of PVP players attacking them and their creations

3) The game needs building and conflict to support each other

 

Now the variables we can only guess are:

  • Player satisfaction
  • Player preferences
  • Player interaction

Within this context we can generally conclude that players like to be apart of the big community, yet the community itself can shift to different focuses, alienating certain player bases as minorities that find it hard to enjoy the game and leave. The solution to this is splitting the community into its respective sub-communities.

 

Now comes the potentially difficult challenge of maximizing player interaction so that the game can make up for this divide and become more interesting. In the world where everything is peaceful, owning, creating, socializing, and trading are key factors that add immersion. The only real breaks in this immersion are when one decides to blow something up for the fun of it. Now the war torn yet story driven world is full of action and change, where things get beat up and strategic factors come into play. It is an add-on to the previous peaceful world which uses up resources to both protect and take more resources. As a result when the two are combined the peaceful world is forced to adapt to it's new challenges just as the action oriented side is forced to adapt to the afore mentioned adaptations.

 

These forces prevent the absolute free will of the player from emerging, but also improve the overall game experience by adding in challenge. (notice how the Dark Souls series used challenge to make the end result so much more satisfying, Flappy Birds also uses this to it's addictive advantage) This challenge, however, will almost always alienate the people who want to relax and just have fun. Since the main universe is full of obstacles, getting past them is an obstacle in itself to the point where it creates even more obstacles for others and on and on the madness goes.

 

In a game that is player driven it is required that players contribute and not just sit around doing nothing. The players that take up roles and advance the story are the real middlemen of the two extremes. They provide the reason behind the military and the purpose behind the creations people make. Such is the nature of this game that nothing is made important without serving a purpose, and nothing serving a purpose lasts forever, so that more things can be made with purpose. 

 

From this only one conclusion can be drawn. That any feature in the game that does not support everyone, supports no one. The Arkified Tiles don't support everyone, so the game doesn't gain anything from having them, whereas a virtual reality instance that any player could make doesn't trade off anything if done right. 

 

The question isn't necessarily all about "How do we implement Arkified Tiles?" That's just narrow minded. Try opening up to different ideas that fulfill the same goals in different ways. If everyone only concentrates on making a flawed system work, then no one is working on making a flawless idea into a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They called it Kyrium, but we call it Arkstone."

 

This we know:

 

The Arks were humanity's crowning achievement. There may have been...issues...with the Exodus, but the plan was simple: The Earth is a seedpod, and the Arks are Her seeds. Now, that is a tall order. Any naturalist can tell you about the fate of most of the seeds that fall from a seedpod; they perish. They don't find the right soil, or they don't implant properly, or they are consumed by creatures eager for their concentrated nutrients. The same was true of the Arkships. We know that many crashed before they could even leave the orbits of Earth, and we know of only one Arkship that did everything it was designed to do; protect the passengers for millennia, find a habitable planet, implant deep enough into the crust to draw upon it's geothermal energy to power the Arkshield and usher in a new age for humanity.

 

But what of the other Arkships?

 

They failed, that's what.

 

It was always going to be a gamble; load the vast majority of humanity onto a bunch of ships with barely tested technology, launch them into the cosmos and hope they end up somewhere safe. The fact that even one did it's job is a miracle.

 

But seriously, what of the other Arkships?

 

Some of them survived, mostly intact, and attempted to follow their programming, but they were unable to do so due to damaged ship systems or an improper implantation. These are the ships that players will find. They will be broken, derelict Arkships with multiple systems completely inoperable. The players that find them will be able to "fix" these ships to a greater or lesser degree, enabling Arkshields, allowing players that interact with the ship access to the quantum immortality engines, and the like. The only way to spawn at a derelict Arkship is to travel to it first and upload your information. Every new player will continue to spawn at the Alioth Arkship as their first spawn point.

 

...Okay, now what about this "Arkstone" you speak of?

 

This is where the **hand-waving** about Kyrium comes into play.

 

Turns out that most of the Arkships were destroyed in deep space. Something about harmonic resonance frequencies tearing them apart, or some such lore based reason. The point is that the Kyrium that survived the destruction of each ship continued to try and follow it's original programming, that of implant-on-the-surface-and-provide-shield.

 

These are the Arkstones that the players find. (or maybe call them Arkshards or something similar. Just don't use the word "token" as it is an immersion-breaking term...please?)

 

An Arkstone is a piece of an Arkship that has been destroyed in deep space. Most of these pieces follow their programming. They find a planet, they attempt to implant into the surface and emit a shield for the humans. Most are successful, but only have a small amount of energy stored in order to emit the special shield they are designed to produce. Once the stored energy is used up, they disintegrate. The Arkstones that the players find are the ones that weren't able to implant correctly enough to produce a shield: they still have all of their stored energy.

 

Now there are some pretty cool properties of Arkstones, which is why every single one is an Artifact-level object.

 

*The size of the Arkstone is directly related to the size of the shield it can produce, but I don't feel that any of them (except the rarest and largest) can protect an entire planetary tile.

 

*The luminosity of the Arkstone is directly related to the duration of the shield that it can emit. I'm thinking something like 6-11 months for the lower range, and 18-30 months for the upper range. Or something similar.

 

*Here's the kicker...

 

*An Arkstone can be implanted naked into the ground in order to emit a shield, but will be drawing upon it's stored energy to do so. This is when those time limits come into play. Once planted, it cannot be moved or manipulated in any way. There is no way to drain or interrupt this particular method of shielding.

 

*An Arkstone can be placed inside of an "Arkfield Generator", which players can provide power to in order to generate a shield without drawing down the power level of the Stone inside it. If the power is interrupted, the shield stays active, but drains the Arkstone itself until power is restored. Once an Arkstone is asked to emit a shield, it is immobile--generator or no--until it uses up all its power and disintegrates.

 

*Three Arkfield Generators placed in separate tiles adjacent to a tile with a player-made Arkshield can be used to force an Arkstone into dormancy for a time. This uses up the charge of the Arkstones in those generators at an accelerated rate. Each day of dormancy drains the attacker's Arkstones of a week or month of their charge. There is no way to avoid this drain of power if you want to attack an Arkified Tile. This cannot be done to an Arkstone that has been planted naked!

 

*Inside the Arkshield, there are rules. I'm thinking that resource collection is as impossible inside an Arkshield as PVP. Also, that player made A.I. is disabled to discourage weapons factories. For PVP-flagged characters...one of three solutions: 1) No PVP-flagged character can enter any Arkshield. 2) Inside of an Arkshield, no door will close if a PVP-flagged player is in the room that door is attached to. 3) Allow destruction of player-made voxels, but not elements, with a flag system that allows the owner of any destroyed voxels free retaliation against the perpetrator.

 

Whew...That's a lot of text!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Woodsman:

 

Naturally occuring Arkstones are an interesting idea. That would mean these would actually be discovered rather than manufactured...but if they appeared based on RNG, it could lead to an abundance or complete scarcity of Arkstones.

 

I also assume that once an Arkstone's internal energy has been completely used up, then that Arkstone is now empty and useless, and thus players would have to find another one? Or do you propose some way to "regenerate" an Arkstone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I should probably copy this thought over into the actual devblog thread concerning the topic:

 

The only potential compromise I can think of to accomodate both Arkified safe zones and not ruining the immersion of territory control is if there was a physical "Ark node" that generated the "safe" part of safe zones and prevented PvP and/or destruction.

 

By disabling or destroying this physical Ark Node, the territory tile would no longer be an Arkified region and would be subject to damage, destruction, and PvP as any other territory would. Given the tangible existence of the Node, the owners of that Arkified area would naturally have to have the Node well hidden and well protected to prevent anyone from disabling it, and by extension, the Arkified area.

 

Alternatively, Ark Nodes could be hacked (some way or another) and have their functionality changed. For instance, ownership of the Ark Node could be transferred to the offensive party (the hacker), or perhaps the Node could be programmed to protect only a certain portion of the area.

 

More on this later...maybe.

This guy gets it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Astrophil

 

Once an Arkstone is depleted, it disintegrates. ...um, in a very pretty and spectacular fashion. I'm thinking something along the lines of the last month of shield time would consist of some really pretty visuals. ...like the stone itself starts to flash and strobe and slowly change colors, while the shield would also show striating colors throughout its hex-field. I'm not a game artist, so it is easy for me to say that it will look cool.  ;)

 

I understand that RNGs would be a big factor in this, but I'm as confident as a non-coder can be that such problems would be surmountable. :ph34r:

 

Also, the ideas of Arknode and Arkfield Generator could be combined easily. If you are using an Arkfield Generator/Arknode, you are able to sustain a shield indefinitely, but open yourself up to attack (a powerful attack, as it takes three artifacts to nullify your single artifact, but still an attack).

 

Just a thought!  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIke this3ndup said, put some serious restrictions on arkified tiles. It can even be linked to game mechanics -- the energy required to power an arkfield is so great that is it impossible to have any "big" things. This is alot like eve where one can not build or move capital ships in high-sec, all the rare ores are in null-sec, etc.

 

The other spin is that infrastructure supports arkfield.

I don't think it is unreasonable to put an arkfield up around my shop or bed n breakfast and have it stay up, even with casual play, as I am playing in a well developed player built city. It will take unprotected infrastructure to support the player-arkfields in the city core.

 

This will also help give the illusion of a developing society and infrastructure, even if I stop subscribing. If the player city I built in became a ghost town and the infrastructure starts to break down, the player-ark fields will start to wink out.

 

It is basically risk vs reward. A player, or players, can build infrastructure to support a massive industrial complex for big payout but at big risk, or use their infrastructure to run arkfields to build a civilized society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had an idea (probably got it from everyone else's) for ark stones that could fit nicely. As I see it ark stones are a way to protect builder's creations until said creations are able to protect themselves via security contracts or other methods. It would generally help the economy if there was an incentive to both explore and stay in a single area, promoting interaction between players at the same time as expansion. Ark stones could easily support this by being scattered around the universe and having a set charge until running out of power and deactivating. Replacing ark stones would become the method to sustained safe zones allowing populated cities to thrive for long periods of time before the scarcity of them becomes too restricting to be viable.

 

In this way PvP is supported by the fight for ark stones, builder's creations are safe for a long enough time to be fully appreciated, a market of individuals selling ark stones to major organizations is formed, and explorers are rewarded greatly for discovering ark stones. The cycle of "nothing lasts forever" can be kept in place.

 

The main thing I disagree with when it comes to ark stones is them being permanent. This disrupts the cycle of renewal that keeps old civilizations from clogging the landscape like an infection. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...