Jump to content
TranquilClaws

Safe Zones in Depth and Which One to Use

Recommended Posts

Indestructible safe zones in the main world space are nightmares for any player that likes role playing or fighting. Destructible things are just a must for any continuous story to thrive with empires falling and new ones rising in their place. That's one of the reasons Halo has such a good story line, the UNSC lose countless battles that actually felt impactful. Entire planets were glassed, monuments destroyed, and lives lost in the age old conflict between the Humans and Covenant. Other great stories and games alike use the destruction of major monuments to give a sense of desperation and awe in the eyes of the audience. The one thing that completely screws this up is when said monuments are indestructible for the lone reason that a creator doesn't want to lose his or her precious work. This completely shatters the experience for any player who doesn't like to just look at something without any form of interaction. In order to make something matter in the role playing world things cannot be static.

 

As a direct consequence of the above game mechanic, Arkification Tokens are put out of the question. They are barriers to the cycle of build, destroy, and rebuild which both fighters and roleplayers thrive on, as well as requiring a multitude of limitations to prevent abuse which almost always decrease immersion.

 

Alien Ruins are something which makes sense lore wise but would also cause a disruption in the cycle.

 

Any truly safe area in the game universe provides a place where players will flock to and also attract griefers and trolls. When there is no challenge that players have to overcome there is usually less incentive for development and more for the abuse of mechanics. The general player base has a low tolerance for people who are abusive, and this causes people to find creative ways to protect themselves, given the right tools, so in other words development counters abuse, and abuse encourages development when the tools for such development are provided. The kinds of development I'm talking about are security organizations, police forces, and security systems that can all be created by players, meaning more immersion, player interaction, and less need for developer intervention. A truly player driven MMORPG.

 

The builders still need a safe place to build, and that's where Virtual Simulators come in real handy. Virtual Simulation fits perfectly with immersion and provides no barriers to the cycle, as it doesn't actually affect the universe apart from providing blueprints, which boost economic growth, player ability, and creation quality for basically everyone.

 

There's a lot you can do with blueprints, and for a game of this type, that could only be positive. Safe zones have to be managed regardless, but virtual spaces are completely controlled by their creator in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the virtual sims can be the single player version of the game where players go to build blueprints. Also the ark should be indestructible because of lore, and simplicity. When players die, they respawn on the ark if they lost their base and everything else. I dont think players should be able to make safe zones though. Another idea is that there could be multiple premade safe zones that function as trading hubs and social areas where players can find people to join their group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only real safe zone in the game should be the hub/ark where everyone starts out. Apart from that I strongly believe that it is the duty of organizations and factions to provide safe areas for interaction and trade. The more power is given to the players the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only real safe zone in the game should be the hub/ark where everyone starts out. Apart from that I strongly believe that it is the duty of organizations and factions to provide safe areas for interaction and trade. The more power is given to the players the better.

 

Yes, I would certainly agree. The Arkship Secure Area should be the only indestructible safe zone, because since emergent gameplay is a huge part of the game, I think many would like to see the natural rise and fall and taking and grabbing of land and territory. With the ability to Arkify areas, this just renders certain areas excluded from the entire system of territory control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would certainly agree. The Arkship Secure Area should be the only indestructible safe zone, because since emergent gameplay is a huge part of the game, I think many would like to see the natural rise and fall and taking and grabbing of land and territory. With the ability to Arkify areas, this just renders certain areas excluded from the entire system of territory control.

Although, I am extremely curious to find one of these safe zones when/if they will exist, I do think either interesting gameplay mechanics or restrictions on them might be needed.

 

I thought I had an idea, but I'm not sure on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although, I am extremely curious to find one of these safe zones when/if they will exist, I do think either interesting gameplay mechanics or restrictions on them might be needed.

 

I thought I had an idea, but I'm not sure on this one.

The general problem with safe zones is that players won't learn to become independent if they're able to go to safe zones to just play an easy game of market place simulator. The hub is the only exception to this rule for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be interested in learning much more about the safe zones as time goes on, and I am in split mind concerning them. Personally, I believe some things should be protected. Much like in the real world, we pretty much have safe zones. Any major city in a western nation is a safe zone to the degree that it is protected (or should be). Most nations are particularly protective of their airspace for this reason. For a civilisation to thrive, which it will need to do so in Dual Universe, there has to be safe zones for things to be built and stay built. 

 

On the other hand, there is a lot of motivation in fighting to defend your home, or your city, or whatever it is you've built, and keep it safe from potential invaders. I guess this is where guilds and organisations come in. Perhaps alliance will be forged to protect each others interests, but not everyone will be in a guild, and not everyone wants to PvP. 

 

Some roleplayers will appreciate full destructive capabilities, others will prefer the town or abode or station they took a long time to build isn't easily open to destruction so that they can continue to roleplay in a way that fits their own desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be interested in learning much more about the safe zones as time goes on, and I am in split mind concerning them. Personally, I believe some things should be protected. Much like in the real world, we pretty much have safe zones. Any major city in a western nation is a safe zone to the degree that it is protected (or should be). Most nations are particularly protective of their airspace for this reason. For a civilisation to thrive, which it will need to do so in Dual Universe, there has to be safe zones for things to be built and stay built. 

 

On the other hand, there is a lot of motivation in fighting to defend your home, or your city, or whatever it is you've built, and keep it safe from potential invaders. I guess this is where guilds and organisations come in. Perhaps alliance will be forged to protect each others interests, but not everyone will be in a guild, and not everyone wants to PvP. 

 

Some roleplayers will appreciate full destructive capabilities, others will prefer the town or abode or station they took a long time to build isn't easily open to destruction so that they can continue to roleplay in a way that fits their own desires.

Not having safe zones (as you pointed out) causes a lot of other options for players to open up. As this is a player driven game that is excellent news. It makes a lot of sense that to protect your in game creations you have to either hire guards or build security systems, and both these things open up opportunities for player run organizations to step in and make a profit, furthering development and the economy at the same time. 

 

Having safe zones automatically removes all those features and puts more strain on developers to manage things for players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read on the DevBlogs, there will be only one default safe zone. However, as the game progresses it is technically possible for players to build their own safezone using the arkship technology.

 

To balance this tech they will have to be incredibly costly to build and maintain. So much so, that their value is questionable. I also recall reading that these player made safezones are not completely indestructible and that given an overwhelming assaulting force, they can be taken down.

 

I think this is a great compromise, because it means only one safezone actually managed by the Dev's. while also providing a way for civilization to thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read on the DevBlogs, there will be only one default safe zone. However, as the game progresses it is technically possible for players to build their own safezone using the arkship technology.

 

To balance this tech they will have to be incredibly costly to build and maintain. So much so, that their value is questionable. I also recall reading that these player made safezones are not completely indestructible and that given an overwhelming assaulting force, they can be taken down.

 

I think this is a great compromise, because it means only one safezone actually managed by the Dev's. while also providing a way for civilization to thrive.

This sounds right. I love the idea of non-permanent safe zones which can still be taken down but will otherwise deactivate any player vs. player mechanics. This makes a lot of sense as major cities will be able to ensure their own safety unless a war were to emerge which afflicted that city. It'll be much like a major event which affects a large number of people can bypass anti-troll/griefer mechanics for the sake of roleplayers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be safe zones... but not necessarily permanent safe zones.

 

A "safe" zone could be player made if enough security devices are built which activate and engage anyone doing some disallowed action.

 

More rigid indestructible safe areas where characters are rendered incapable of such actions are also desirable.

 

But Decay should be built in.

 

If we can freely move about this universe... If we can colonize and build large civilizations... then Populations centers will shift.  Old starting locations will be disused or far from the frontier and population concentrations... And so as new things are built and populations remain then those places should be maintained but if populations move and abandon an area... it should decay over time to lower and lower levels... losing safe zone status and start point status and even eventually becoming ruins of the past civilization. 

 

 

With this idea... if a war were to break out... The actual safe zone could be small... and the attackers could whittle away... drive out the defenders... and when enough people have left... or certain destructible defense structures fail to be maintained... it could lose its indestructible status. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

There should be safe zones... but not necessarily permanent safe zones.

 

A "safe" zone could be player made if enough security devices are built which activate and engage anyone doing some disallowed action.

 

More rigid indestructible safe areas where characters are rendered incapable of such actions are also desirable.

 

But Decay should be built in.

 

If we can freely move about this universe... If we can colonize and build large civilizations... then Populations centers will shift.  Old starting locations will be disused or far from the frontier and population concentrations... And so as new things are built and populations remain then those places should be maintained but if populations move and abandon an area... it should decay over time to lower and lower levels... losing safe zone status and start point status and even eventually becoming ruins of the past civilization. 

 

 

With this idea... if a war were to break out... The actual safe zone could be small... and the attackers could whittle away... drive out the defenders... and when enough people have left... or certain destructible defense structures fail to be maintained... it could lose its indestructible status. 

I was thinking about a beacon system which allows players to find where civilization currently resides as well as a system for reclamation. It would be cool to come back to an abandoned city and find it overgrown with plants and weathering.

 

Side note: If a player decided to come back to the game after 10 months of inactivity that would be hilarious to watch his reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That would allow just any player to disable the whole field protecting that area. Not exactly a good plan in my eyes. Still gonna go with the idea that a state of war with a "significant" faction would be the only way to temporarily remove the no pvp shield. In which case all city/basewide defenses would turn on and begin attacking the invaders. Should that city be deemed precious due to the presence of monuments then it is up to the defenders to preserve it.

 

One thing to note about builders in this game is that they won't be making just static things to be looked at. Whether it be a home, base, ship, or cultural marker, everything made by the builders should have some meaning in the universe, even if that meaning attracts the eyes of envious conquerors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im on the fence with if there should be other "ark fields". i think from what iv read in the devblogs if i took it right is they are still deciding on this or not. and i think you have to find a very rare piece of material to actually make it not to mention the enormous amount of power. but as i dont believe you should have a standing fleet 24/7 365 to protect your main city i would like to see more automated defenses being built. maybe this is something for the researchers to hash out in game though. but i would also like to see some kind of mercenary hiring system as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picture a shield generator... or actually several... with vulnerable parts that stick out past the field... which can be attacked.

 

From inside the defenders can keep funneling funds into its upkeep and repairs... and or directly repairing them.  Or rebuilding one that was destroyed. 

 

On the outside the defenders can use the automated defensive ground stations to attack whatever gets close and their own ships to actively go out and do battle.  And the attackers have to get through all that to do damage to the vulnerable spots and a lot of it... lest it be repaired back to full seconds later... and keep that up for a long long time.

 

 

These things should take a long time to set up... from dedicated players with large organizations who will be around for a long time to keep it running...

 

And likewise it should take a long time to take them down... requiring an equally large organization to achieve it when it's defended... or possibly more quickly through politics.

 

If for example the alliance crumbles and a civil war breaks out possibly with ownership of the arkified safe zone switching hands several times in quick succession... Whole groups of players up and leaving for a more stable area with the more vengeful groups left to duke it out... that could quickly erode the stability of the area and result in the safe zone going away.  If a safe zone gets abandoned it should cease functioning in fairly short order. 

 

But a safe zone should be so hard to set up in the first place that there would have to be a monumental disaster either political or military to get people to abandon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would allow just any player to disable the whole field protecting that area. Not exactly a good plan in my eyes. 

 

That would allow any player to disable it...if the Node was not well protected. If an Ark Node owner had any sense in them, I feel that they would have great inclination to protect the Node safely so that no unauthorized players could access it.

 

Perhaps you were confused with the whole concept? An Ark Node would be some physical construct...you would be able to see it and touch it...maybe it would take the form of a console, or a whole array of consoles, or an entire control room, or maybe just a shield crystal. Regardless, you would not be able to interact with it unless you were physically within the proximity of the Node.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...