Territorial PvP - Sherlock + Homes

[Asvarduil]

The territorial PvP in StarMade is one of the factors of the game I enjoy by and far the most. Having to hunt faction-blocks on non-homeworlds to "shift" a system to my faction's control is a very interesting type of play - in a way a direct, but indirect form of PvP, which in my experience is pretty novel.

However...it could be better! I've got some suggestions on how to improve this form of PvP to be a bit more interesting, and more to the point, defeatable.

Problem: Sunken Blocks
Before I suggest anything, I need to note some problems in the current metagame. They start with one key cause: "Sunken" faction blocks.

Pretty much, a great way to secure a base against someone, is to take a faction block, and stick it in an armored vault, all of which is so well-hidden within a planet that no one will find it without eradicating the planet itself. While there's cases that this is very good, it makes for poor territorial PvP, and worse, strengthens the trend in StarMade's current metagame where big ships with nukes are all that matter.

Problem: Who Needs Finesse or Defense!?
As a result of only needing a large enough nukeship to wrest control of a system, one of the key things that makes PvP satisfying is taken out - finesse, and defensibility. You don't need finesse, because brute force is just a better solution. You also don't need defensibility - your primary, and usually effective, defense is security through obscurity (until someone brings the nuker to that system you just took control of.)

...What can be done to solve this?

Solution 1: Require a path from the planet surface to the faction block
Pretty much, people need to be able to get to faction blocks for territorial PvP to be a viable thing, without nuke ships dominating. That means, we need to make a concession to the trolls, and require that it be possible to reach a Faction block without the need for heavy ordinance.

Now, does that mean it needs to be easy to do so? No. Due to the wiring/logic systems in the game, all manner of horrible traps and puzzles can be set up to dissuade intruders. It would require more finesse to set up these sorts of 'base defenses', and as a result contribute great fun not only for the griefer, but for the builder who gets to devise more effective traps to screw over ne'erdowells.

The next benefit of such a system? It requires defenses in the first place. It would be necessary to set up AI drones in orbit of a base. It would be necessary to have a way of having an outpost under attack notify members of a faction that something's going on. In short, it would make it necessary to provide players with information to set their own goals, thus adding depth to the game, and making it "better".

Solution 2: A new kind of Home
But wait! That's not all. What about the loners (yes, trolls included)? Should you really need a faction to play the game?

I say, "no" - even if you're in a faction with other people, maybe there's a station you want to live in, or an awesome planet, or something. You want it to be "yours". That's a noble goal. However, things are only more valuable if they can be taken away.

The workaround as it stands is to make a one-man faction, and set a faction block. This is bad, because it fundamentally discourages factions above one person, which prevents a number of cool things from happening - crewed large vessels being among them. It's simply not an efficient way to play the game.

The solution I propose is a block that is cheaper, but similar to the Faction Block - The Player Home block. It has the same "path to" limitation that the Faction block has. It is mutually exclusive with Faction blocks - you can't have a planet that's a player home and a faction home at the same time. Like the faction block, it provides invincibility and inoperability to players who aren't the player it's set to. However, unlike the faction block, it's destructible no matter what.

This means, players can set up that awesome personal station, or planetary base, or asteroid outpost (the asteroid thing is a bit iffy, I admit, but still; Rule of Cool.) They don't need to spin off a one-man faction. It still needs the best defenses possible, however, which means traps and drones and friendly players.

The best part of this suggestion? You already have most of the code necessary to make this happen. A slight tweak to ownership will make life more interesting for everyone involved.

Conclusion
By playing alone, StarMade's territorial PvP fails to reach its fullest, and fails to fully realize the game itself. By requiring that bases - be they for factions or individuals - require finesse to both attack and defend, you make a deeper, more engaging game that de-emphasizes big ships and bigger guns in favor of creativity and teamwork.

Thanks for reading the Great Wall o' Text. What do you think about these changes to the Territorial PvP in StarMade?

 

[jayman38]

This is another situation where a waypoint block or some other sort of "breadcrumb" block can be used to create a pathway from the surface to the ultimate home of the faction/player-home block. By using a breadcrumb path, you don't need the game to go through geometric acrobatics to verify that there is a path from the block to the surface. As long as the breadcrumb trail is clear, the path is open.

With that, I can imagine players creating very (very, very!) elaborate mazes with many dead ends and deathtraps on the way to the faction block. It would almost be necessary to call in the nuke ship to clear the maze. Interesting side effect: nuking the maze might disrupt the breadcrumb trail without actually destroying the faction block, forcing the faction block to reset because it no longer "sees" the surface.

 

[Asvarduil]

This is another situation where a waypoint block or some other sort of "breadcrumb" block can be used to create a pathway from the surface to the ultimate home of the faction/player-home block. By using a breadcrumb path, you don't need the game to go through geometric acrobatics to verify that there is a path from the block to the surface. As long as the breadcrumb trail is clear, the path is open.

With that, I can imagine players creating very (very, very!) elaborate mazes with many dead ends and deathtraps on the way to the faction block. It would almost be necessary to call in the nuke ship to clear the maze. Interesting side effect: nuking the maze might disrupt the breadcrumb trail without actually destroying the faction block, forcing the faction block to reset because it no longer "sees" the surface.

Aah, but that's the beauty of the home block. The home block provides the same level of invulnerability and inoperability as the Faction Block on a home base (though, with the limit of one Home per player, and the fact that the Home block itself is never invulnerable.) As a result, a nuker is completely ineffective against a player's home; ground-based recon is necessary to do anything about it.

Additionally, the "see the surface" constraint would be enforced by preventing a block from being added if it would violate the constraint (and, showing the user an error message to the effect of, "It has to be possible to reach the Home/Faction block from the outside of this station.") Similarly, if you're not that player, you can't build on that "station" in the first place, rendering the concern moot.

Do note: Faction Home bases, and Player Home bases would both be a thing, but a single "station" cannot be both a Faction base and a Home base; if you have to choose between a cool station being your faction's home, or your home, that's a decision the player has to make. You can't ever have a fully invincible personal home.

 

[NeonSturm]

It's not expensive to calculate the availability of a path in 2D.

Room:

True|False << walkable ( "block below" & PHYSICAL == true && "block | block above" & PHYSICAL == false)
Create a 2D polygon around walkable blocks.
Create a 2D polygon around obstacles.​

Group of Rooms:

All rooms which are connected by wedges or stairs on which you can jump up.
Doors split rooms, but not groups of rooms -- at least not while they are public or kill-able.

Every room maintains connections to other rooms of it's group and is ejected from this group if he lost all of them.​

This should not make pathing easier (if not already coded) but also ease pressurization code for air.

 

[ltmauve]

As long as the personal base block is only destructible to getting hit directly, and cannot be damaged from a nuke on the surface, I'd say this suggestion would be great.

Of course, having ways for a player to open doors without being part of the faction would help make this even better.

 

[Asvarduil]

As long as the personal base block is only destructible to getting hit directly, and cannot be damaged from a nuke on the surface, I'd say this suggestion would be great.

Of course, having ways for a player to open doors without being part of the faction would help make this even better.

You raise a fair point. This should apply to both Player Home and Faction blocks (at the expense of direct-damage vulnerability as you say, of course.)

I disagree on faction-locked doors, though; if the door isn't on a faction home base, you can brute-force the door with either your personal laser pistol, or a hastily-assembled mini-siege weapon composed of a ship core, power, weapon computer, and 1...n weapon barrels of that computer's type.*

*: Sucks if that structure is shielded faster than you can damage it, though...heh.

 

[ltmauve]

I disagree on faction-locked doors, though; if the door isn't on a faction home base, you can brute-force the door with either your personal laser pistol, or a hastily-assembled mini-siege weapon composed of a ship core, power, weapon computer, and 1...n weapon barrels of that computer's type.*

Yes, but home bases are invincible except for the faction/home module, right? So if I want to hide my module behind a door, like in a space station, right now your suggestion prohibits it. Honestly hacking the module sounds better than shooting it. No advantage to constructing a small ship inside the base or penalties for having a cavenrous control room.

 

[Asvarduil]

Yes, but home bases are invincible except for the faction/home module, right? So if I want to hide my module behind a door, like in a space station, right now your suggestion prohibits it. Honestly hacking the module sounds better than shooting it. No advantage to constructing a small ship inside the base or penalties for having a cavenrous control room.

Good point. So, then there's two ways to solve that: A) your suggestion that doors are interactable by non-faction/non-home members, or B) doors no longer get the invincibility conferred by the "station" having a home status - so, siegeable doors. Both have their merits; in the spirit of this thread, I err towards B actually, because it creates a natural defense point at which to set traps/puzzles, or recruit players to guard.

 

[ltmauve]

B does have merits, but I think A will give greater flexibilty. There's no reason for a player not to have some sort of trap that will kill anyone who enters a corridor or something unless a button is pushed. If hacking is implemented, it provides a way for attacker to not die from a trap with no chance to turn it off. Also, any single hole getting punched in a door is now the target of anyone on the other side of the door.

 

[Snk]

+1