Jump to content

Killing Inside TU's, Loss of Items


norab7

Recommended Posts

(TU = Territory Unit, look it up if you don't know what it is)

 

This is only a half fleshed out idea, so bare with me..

 

I was thinking before about respawning and being raided on your own properties, and that if i'm raided on my own property and die, i'd be very annoyed given that some organisations will get the point where they are so big you just can't stop them, and in turn theres nothing preventing me from continuous loss of items from being killed by said organisation.

 

What protection to a player is available from big organisations that could just steam-roll entire planets just because they can?

 

I was thinking that maybe Item loss from being killed should only happen outside your own TU influence, so if you get raided and killed inside your own area by a large organisation you don't lose anything, as it is your home. But the people raiding you will lose items as it is not their home.

 

This could be expanded a little where Open world you lose a few items on death, not a massive amount but just enough to make it a 'should i attack and risk losing stuff' situation and not a 'oh if i lose it's only a couple items' situation so that the open world PvP is not just full of killing on sight as there is a risk to it.

 

The next part could be that raiders of a TU could lose MORE items, so if you die inside a TU that is not your own you run the risk of losing a lot of items which gives a slightly higher risk to raiding someone and you would need to make sure you are doing it for a benefit and not just doing it because you can.

 

Obviously this doesn't fix the organisations that just want to ruin peoples day, but it's kind of a start of an idea. Obviously this doesn't affect ATU's as they are the same as arksites and non-PvP allowed. But this will always be a concern of mine until we know more as so far I know of no proper way (that's been confirmed) to stop organisations just completely taking over the game and preventing new or low level people doing anything, potentially ruining the game for a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against restricting item drop from TU-owners, as it would annihilate every kind of pirate/robbers/etc. gameplay who dont want to only focus on moving targets.

I'd rather have some systems that will interfere with the respawn, be it that the data transmitted is incomplete and the killed attacker will lose increased stats upon revival combined with an increased respawn time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against restricting item drop from TU-owners, as it would annihilate every kind of pirate/robbers/etc. gameplay who dont want to only focus on moving targets.

I'd rather have some systems that will interfere with the respawn, be it that the data transmitted is incomplete and the killed attacker will lose increased stats upon revival combined with an increased respawn time.

 

Nothings stopping you from looting the area once you take it. Or attacking a ship for its cargo, i simply mean only the player inventory that doest get effected whilst they are on their own claim. It is their claim after all.. anyway, TU's are supposed to be expensive, so this wouldn't be every place you go to loot, only the main bases maybe, and it will only affect players, not chests and buildings :)

 

Also, i'm not sure if there is going to be ground items, no-where is it mentioned about how we will interact with loot, will it be inventory only or will it appear on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying you wouldn't want to lose the things you were carrying when killed?

 

If I'm on my own land and I'm raided out of the blue, no. I'd very much like to keep my items.

 

If I'm raiding someone, hell I've chosen to raid them, I wouldn't care if i lost my entire inventory, raiding someone was my choice and i knew the consequences.

 

I just think if you don't lose items on your own claim, it saves the people who aren't going to raid from being screwed over by some nasty people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it makes any sense for you to retain items that were on your person when you died - they should drop where you died so they can be looted.

 

The way I see it territory claim units are just enablers for the tagging system and gloating rights, and should grant no military or economic advantages beyond that.  If you are out in the wild - and yes that includes your claimed territory - you need to have the means to defend yourself against raiders.  This enables a whole bunch of gameplay opportunities.  Hard-coding protections just takes away those job opportunities on both sides of the coin.

 

Aside from that though, if your organisation's claimed territory is under attack, why are you carrying around vulnerable stuff instead of leaving it in a more secure area that the attackers haven't breached yet?  If there are no secure areas remaining, then you should have evacuated your valuables before the battle (there is an invulnerability period like the reinforcement mode in Eve Online).  If you were caught completely by surprise, this is a deeper failing.  Your organisation should have automated defenses and warning systems in place.  If you haven't even set up any kind of defense such that you are able to stop what you are doing, leave valuables in a secure area, and re-equip yourself for battle, then you are going to lose your territory anyway.
 
 
Also: what will stop big organisations from dominating the game?
 
I think you are saying that this is inevitable but I don't think it has to be.  It is undoubtedly a tough task to ensure that the game remains dynamic and open for all sizes of player organisations to be relevant and powerful.  I started a thread a while back with my thoughts on the matter and Nyz was generous enough to reply https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/281-diversity-of-battles-and-wars/  I think this is an area that needs a lot of discussion.
 
There is an early devblog where NQ talks about their vision for the game and how they want to ensure that essentially, no one ever "wins" the game.  Easier said than done but it is good to know that the devs have had this in mind for at least two years already. Quote:
 
"If some player or group of players become too powerful, there must always be a way for other players to counter them. You expect the balance to adjust by itself, a bit like the famous “invisible hand of the market”. This is very difficult to achieve however, and we will need our community in early alpha access to fine tune a lot of things."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"If some player or group of players become too powerful, there must always be a way for other players to counter them. You expect the balance to adjust by itself, a bit like the famous “invisible hand of the market”. This is very difficult to achieve however, and we will need our community in early alpha access to fine tune a lot of things."

 

 

They oculd probably do that with a reputation system, attacking non-agressive players and other "bad" actions reduces reputation and the reputation could influence npc-prices, maybe taxes to the system etc.

On the other hand that might also be pretty hard to code, because if you would create ur own dual universe religion you probably would do a lot of good things in the name of your god, but others probably see that as not so nice :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice idea with the reputation and npc sales prices and all that being affected. Could work something out to affect the overall organisation too, so that you totally are working together and your actions have consequences to everyone...

 

The only reason I'm being picky and want to have some system that deters raiding randomly is because I can't help thinking about low population organisations or single players being pointlessly raided by powerful organisations.

 

I'm imagining there is going to be a lot of people who are playing solo, or are just playing with a small group of friends. As well there is going to be people who just want to raid small groups of people because that's how they enjoy the game.

 

I'm only thinking that if solo people or small groups of people get raided and lose there items its going to be very annoying, and potentially rage-quit inducing. Think about it, you're just in the middle of nowhere minding your own business trying to set up a small house and in comes a bunch of raiders and kill you. Not to bad the first time, but you've lost items and they've gained items.

Few hours pass and you've got back to where you were and low and behold the raiders are back again, kill you again and you lose more items.. Since the raiders could be based in the same area as you this could be a rinse and repeat thing.

 

I just think there has to be some protection for people who want to have a more calmer experience in DU than having to worry about raiders and looking over there shoulders all the time. This isn't DayZ, but without some sort of system to protect lesser people/groups it will be, because 'why not' kill them and take there stuff.. Everyone you meet you might as well just shoot and take their stuff everytime... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valid concerns, but I think you're missing some pieces of the puzzle.

 

I think your real concern is that small bases of operations for solo players and small organisations will be repeatedly destroyed by raiders, thieves, pirates, privateers, and other, larger groups of settlers.  Let me just say first of all that I don't think your solution would help in that regard, first because it is not losing inventory that is the problem, it is losing buildings, and second because solo players and small groups are much less likely to claim territory, partly because TU's are rare and expensive, partly because there will be little need to.

 

So the answer to the problem of small groups getting bullied back into safe territory is to give them the tools to protect themselves.  "Protection" can come in many forms and a lot of it is built in to the game world.  For example, the game universe is massive and varied.  Small groups can travel far into the unknown and set up camp at a location where others are unlikely to find them.  They can choose a location that is hidden away such that passers by could come close without even noticing there is a settlement there.  Or choose a location that has great natural defenses and set up automated weaponry and shielding that fires at anyone who comes within range and doesn't have the correct tags (see the rights and duties blog for more on this).  But there are other options too.  You could ally yourself with other small groups and form a defensive pact.  Or just ally yourselves with a military organisation who do nothing but PvP, but fight for "good", protecting the weak, etc.  Or, hire mercenaries on a case by case basis, whenever trouble comes along.  Or use diplomacy and come to an agreement with the local bullies (read: protection money).  Or you can use some combination of two or more of all of those ideas.  The possibilities go on, and there are far more than I can think of here.

 

However, even with all of that there will be great losses in the game.  Without great losses there can be no great victories, no great stories; no cycle of creation/construction/destruction/reconstruction.

 

Check out this devblog that discusses PvP, it gives a good indication of where NQ are coming from.  https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/09/13/arkship-security-or-where-does-pvp-starts/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valid concerns, but I think you're missing some pieces of the puzzle.

 

I think your real concern is that small bases of operations for solo players and small organisations will be repeatedly destroyed by raiders, thieves, pirates, privateers, and other, larger groups of settlers.  Let me just say first of all that I don't think your solution would help in that regard, first because it is not losing inventory that is the problem, it is losing buildings, and second because solo players and small groups are much less likely to claim territory, partly because TU's are rare and expensive, partly because there will be little need to.

I completely agree with that.

Also, take into account that "big organizations" or "raiders" will just destroy your TU "just because they can" and especially if it increases loot rate in the area.

 

Regards,

Shadow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So since people understand the concern, would it be down to figuring out a method that would work and wouldn't impact immersion or the gameplay now?

 

Or are people against having some form of protection for the lower level/smaller groups of people ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So since people understand the concern, would it be down to figuring out a method that would work and wouldn't impact immersion or the gameplay now?

 

Or are people against having some form of protection for the lower level/smaller groups of people ?

 

The Devs already have a system for this. It is the Arks protection zone. Now I would like to try and figure out more on how many there will be and selection of which you spawn at initially, but thats another topic. 

 

For now, each ark has a large protection radius to help new and solo players. 

You can venture out to mine better resources, or just buy them on the market and keep your base inside the safe zone. 

 

Beyond that, you can devise your own system. Personally with my small group, we may ally with other corporations eventually. Until then we keep pretty well hidden with large firepower to take care of the unfortunate person who stumbles upon us. Also backup bases in other hidden locations help minimize losses. 

 

While I would be ok with some sort of offline system to help protect your base more (maybe a higher defense rating or better turret tracking or something like a bonus) I would not want to see a invulnerable period for a given number of hours. Why large groups can always have a force ready to fight at any hour, small groups and individuals tend to have restricted play times. If I want to take out your base and then have to wait 12 hrs before I can finish the job, I may not be able to log on at that time. 

 

As far as item protection I am against it. If you die what is on your body is there, either destroyed or dropped. Why should it be otherwise?

And from the Dev blogs it seems that your TCU will protect others from building and accessing your area. Until it is destroyed all they can do is blow up your stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misinterpreted a couple points there..

 

If your in a organisation that has the capabilities to defend yourself, you should defend yourself. But that help the small groups of people being facestompped every time they log on.

 

The shield would just be a one time use, limited time from first spawn item, giving you time to set up your base. From fresh spawn to say 24hours you claim a section. Where you can build and defend, after that you never get another and are open the the elements (still doesn't long term help solo/small groups)

 

And the protection of items I still think is critical, at least for the beginning. Very rage inducing to lose everything by a giant organisation every time you play... I would stop playing.. because id be forced to as I couldn't get anywhere because of said organisation.

 

Yes, joining a organisation could prevent alot of these issues and protect you in the long term.. bit what of the people who don't want to do that?, Or people who just want to play with friends?.

 

You can't punish solo/small groups of people simply because they aren't in a giant organisation.

 

From what I know of Eve I beleive for new people it's either, join a faction or basically don't play because you can't do anything solo anymore... and I don't want the for DU...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Maybe you could have "protected inventory slots"

 

If you have 20 inventory slots for example, you could have 5 which are protected and every item or recource you store in there will SITLL be there after your death.

 

Just an idea...

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...