Greifing or Legitimate Strategy?

[Lecic]

Adding shields to prevent this would prevent the insta-kill on the warhead, but would make the torpedo much larger, needing more push modules, energy, shield generator, and shield capacitors. Too big to fire from a small torpedo bomber, much less one that can cloak.

Since the core has an innate 220 shields, you'd only need one recharger to make it invulnerable to standard PD. Hell, you could just have a shield supply beam in your magazine to charge up the torp's shield. However, I kind of like this, since people would need to make heavy PD turrets to deal with these more well protected missiles.

 

[lilheartless]

You missed the other two parts,lilheartless, if warheads were targetable, had the 10 second self-destruct timer, and had to be activated (meaning you'd have to link them to some logic to start the countdown or activate them manually), then a lot of the problems you described would go away for the following reasons;

1. Being able to target them makes it so PD can take them out, even if you armor the torps they could still be taken out with one hit to the exposed warhead from a 1 damage cannon/cannon turret. Adding shields to prevent this would prevent the insta-kill on the warhead, but would make the torpedo much larger, needing more push modules, energy, shield generator, and shield capacitors. Too big to fire from a small torpedo bomber, much less one that can cloak.
2. The countdown timer guarantees you'd have to fire from at least 750m, assuming the server max speed hasn't changed and the push modules are strong enough to push it to max speed before the warhead self detonates. This puts the bomber well within the firing range of the longer range weapons available, so a beam/beam or missile/beam turret could peg your bomber before you even get a torp launched.
3. Having to arm the warheads before they can explode would prevent people from deploying stupid numbers of them in open space and firing them all at once. It would at least slow the process down enough that you might get a few shots off before station defenses kick in and start shooting back, instead of a massive 20 torp volley all at once.

I keep coming up with ways that these could be countered, but I keep getting the same tired rebuttals I heard back at the beginning of this thread. I feel like I'm trying to convince my 2 year old son to eat his veggies, there's a lot of screaming and not much gets done. I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with this is wrong, but maybe we should be trying to fix the problem instead of wasting energy fighting about it.

I guess I didn't explain myself well enough You can't just make neutral warheads targettable by everything because then torpedoes become useless on any of your own ships thats what i meant ala there has to be some "other" way to target them other than just making them targetable entities otherwise you increase the cost of every torpedo by requiring a faction module which is something i'm not sure i'm ok with that seems like a direct nerf to torpedo viability which i don't actually want

your other 2 points are all correct i'm just stuck on how to "label" the torpedoes so that your ships turrets don't shoot them while the defending station or ships turrets do shoot them without being set to be aggressive to neutrals.

I did actually miss your they get labeled thing i had like 7 posts to go through and i didn't read as closely as i should have.

as far as your passive aggressive outro i'm not entirely sure but I don't think i actually repeated anything i said before the only thing my post was lacking was a more fleshed out answer to why just tagging torpedoes to be shot isn't actually the be all end all solution, but i had alot of post to respond too and i was loading into a game of dota so i was typing quickly.

 

[Zaphord]

Since the core has an innate 220 shields, you'd only need one recharger to make it invulnerable to standard PD. Hell, you could just have a shield supply beam in your magazine to charge up the torp's shield. However, I kind of like this, since people would need to make heavy PD turrets to deal with these more well protected missiles.

About the only PD I use that wouldn't be able to insta-kill a torpedo with the core shields is my 1 damage AMS turrets, which only track incoming missiles anyway. Everything else is set to Any, and would shred the 22o shields and then some. The only concern I'd have is the derpy AI shooting at the wall while the torps are plowing into my docking bay.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445199110,1445198030][/DOUBLEPOST]

as far as your passive aggressive outro i'm not entirely sure but I don't think i actually repeated anything i said before the only thing my post was lacking was a more fleshed out answer to why just tagging torpedoes to be shot isn't actually the be all end all solution, but i had alot of post to respond too and i was loading into a game of dota so i was typing quickly.

Hey, this looks familiar...

As soon as ALL entities get an ownership flag (aka if a neutral ship is launched from a faction or neutral ship piloted by XXX_420noscopeasshatyoloswag420_XXX then said torpedo is owned by him and if said torpedo damages my station ship etc I can declare war on him and his faction at the same time then real griefing will no longer be a thing he could maybe get 1 torpedo off and then all of his other torpedoes would get shot down as well as him, As it stands we have no real defense against neutrals you either set them as hostile and ur an asshole picking on underdeveloped people in the name of self defense, or you leave them as non hostile and set yourself up to be taken advantage of.

Seems pretty fleshed out to me, so why the 180? You pretty much explained what I've been saying all along, on the first page of this thread no less, but somewhere along the line you forgot that and jumped on the "warheads are bad" bandwagon.

Passive aggressive? I'm just trying not to be a total dick, getting kicked from this forum isn't going to help any so I try to be tactful.

 

[lilheartless]

About the only PD I use that wouldn't be able to insta-kill a torpedo with the core shields is my 1 damage AMS turrets, which only track incoming missiles anyway. Everything else is set to Any, and would shred the 22o shields and then some. The only concern I'd have is the derpy AI shooting at the wall while the torps are plowing into my docking bay.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445199110,1445198030][/DOUBLEPOST]

Hey, this looks familiar...



Seems pretty fleshed out to me, so why the 180? You pretty much explained what I've been saying all along, on the first page of this thread no less, but somewhere along the line you forgot that and jumped on the "warheads are bad" bandwagon.

Passive aggressive? I'm just trying not to be a total dick, getting kicked from this forum isn't going to help any so I try to be tactful.

Right now there is no way to automatically add a neutral to the personal enemies list I'm not sure how feasible it is but yes If there was a way to maintain a tag on a launched ship until it was entered by another player and that that tag would share a tag with the ship it was launched from and that warheads get changed to register as damage from the entity they were attached to instead of just doing un recordable damage then this would be the perfect solution to stop almost stop griefing.

However with more thought I just realized it would just limit you to getting griefed one time rather than preventing the griefing itself and in that case all you would have to do is make a much bigger mirv torpedo you could still get away with it the first time so you just have to make a giant ass one and done torpedo instead of launching 50 of them.

You could also just change your name each time you log in but if you did that to bypass the station/ships defenses you are both dedicated and obviously abusing the system and then its up to the administrators to blacklist the players starmade id rather than just adding their name to a personal enemy list.

 

[Crashmaster]

Would putting the 'fire at enemies' , 'fire at enemies and neutral' and possibly 'fire at neutral only' options into the AI menu work or cause other problems? Faction entities and missile would be naturally excluded from the target list. You could have short-range neutral defenses with long-range enemy defenses and long-range neutral non-lethal deterrent. Neutral-fired missiles are neutral until they hit you as well. AMS with a enemy+neutral setting could get them before the first hits.

 

[lilheartless]

Would putting the 'fire at enemies' , 'fire at enemies and neutral' and possibly 'fire at neutral only' options into the AI menu work or cause other problems? Faction entities and missile would be naturally excluded from the target list. You could have short-range neutral defenses with long-range enemy defenses and long-range neutral non-lethal deterrent. Neutral-fired missiles are neutral until they hit you as well. AMS with a enemy+neutral setting could get them before the first hits.

this is another thing i thought about and this would stop you from getting torpedoed but it wouldn't allow you to retaliate ala if someone fires torpedoes at you and you take no damage, then they wouldn't be added to your personal enemy list and your main turrets wouldn't blow them sky high which is what i think should be happening lol.

 

[Crashmaster]

I thought the thread was about wanting a counter. It seems more so that you need to automatically kill anyone who dares to launch one in your direction.

 

[lilheartless]

I thought the thread was about wanting a counter. It seems more so that you need to automatically kill anyone who dares to launch one in your direction.

kill them not really and like i said it would counter the torpedoes themselves but it wouldn't allow you to fight back which would be a nice benefit.

I didn't actually disagree with the fact that it would indeed provide the basic function of stopping the griefing itself.

 

[Bodhitron]

this is another thing i thought about and this would stop you from getting torpedoed but it wouldn't allow you to retaliate ala if someone fires torpedoes at you and you take no damage, then they wouldn't be added to your personal enemy list and your main turrets wouldn't blow them sky high which is what i think should be happening lol.

That's debatable though. PD sensors would read warheads even docked, so they would probably fire on unlaunched torpedos as well. So declaring war on everyone who swings past your base carrying a warhead isn't ideal. Main thing is that if turrets can be set to target all non-allied warheads, warheads cannot be used to grief in that way anymore. The rest seems to be a matter of opinion.

 

[lilheartless]

That's debatable though. PD sensors would read warheads even docked, so they would probably fire on unlaunched torpedos as well. So declaring war on everyone who swings past your base carrying a warhead isn't ideal. Main thing is that if turrets can be set to target all non-allied warheads, warheads cannot be used to grief in that way anymore. The rest seems to be a matter of opinion.

definitely if turrets could be set to target any neutral or enemy warheads then that would prevent griefing with just plain jane warheads and honestly if someone uses standard armor blocks on their torpedo just to troll my base it cost me just as much as it cost them so i won't complain

 

[Tunk]

Honestly, if you dont want it blown up faction base it or move to a carebear server.
PD targeting warheads/neutral/ever complex issues?
Ill jump bomb it if I feel like your station deserves it.

 

[lilheartless]

Honestly, if you dont want it blown up faction base it or move to a carebear server.
PD targeting warheads/neutral/ever complex issues?
Ill jump bomb it if I feel like your station deserves it.

Honestly if you have nothing constructive to say why bother posting as its been stated so many times i can't even count its not getting attacked that is the issue its not even losing ships or stations its being able to be attacked while you are offline with 0 counterplay that is an issue if you aren't capable of understanding that please don't just come in and add absolutely nothing to the discussion.

 

[Winterhome]

Honestly if you have nothing constructive to say why bother posting as its been stated so many times i can't even count its not getting attacked that is the issue its not even losing ships or stations its being able to be attacked while you are offline with 0 counterplay that is an issue if you aren't capable of understanding that please don't just come in and add absolutely nothing to the discussion.

You seem to be under the assumption that because he disagrees strongly, he must not understand what you're talking about. Have you considered that he might just disagree because he disagrees?

 

[max stripe]

The thing with the super-warheads is that they can destroy hours of work with something that took seconds to build. That seems like griefing as I see it. In my opinion, if someone is having fun at the expense of others, then it's griefing.

i blow things up for fun on servers because this is PART of the game... to say destruction is not part of the game is like saying breathing aint part of life

Spawn camping is greifing no matter what game your playing, that we can all agree on. This will be rule #1 when I finally get Mostly Dark Universe to go public. As side from that, as admin, I'd have to look at greifing or legit tactic on a case by case manner.

So if I catch a player wrecking someone else's shit for no good reason other than for the lulz, first order of business is to turn on Godmode and wreck his shit. If it persists, he gets kicked with a 24 hour ban. Third time? Blacklisted.

Seems fair to me.

so random attacks would be offput by an admin in godmode deleting everything? sounds like a good way to loose most of your player base

 

[lilheartless]

You seem to be under the assumption that because he disagrees strongly, he must not understand what you're talking about. Have you considered that he might just disagree because he disagrees?

actually i had considered it, but then i though maybe it be better to assume that he didn't read some of the thread rather than assume he wants a feature in the game that promotes unhealthy gameplay so I guess i made my choice.

Edit: to further clarify maybe its me who doesn't understand or rather can't understand why people want to maintain game functions that promote unhealthy gameplay unhealthy gameplay kills games just like an unhealthy diet kills a person in the long run its bad for your game and hurts your playerbase no one actually wants this but alot of people don't have the comprehension to see what their actions do on a large scale.

 

[Winterhome]

actually i had considered it, but then i though maybe it be better to assume that he didn't read some of the thread rather than assume he wants a feature in the game that promotes unhealthy gameplay so I guess i made my choice.

"Unhealthy gameplay"? You mean like every single other combat related thing in the game?

 

[lilheartless]

"Unhealthy gameplay"? You mean like every single other combat related thing in the game?

what? your lack of understanding is starting to show as well, in a game about combat , fighting, battle, war those are healthy gameplay elements.

when someone attacks me I can shoot back if i can't shoot back my turrets can shoot back, if someone ambushes me in my miner while i'm far away from my station i can run try to fight back that is part of the game hunting and being hunted these too are healthy gameplay elements they involve strategy planning counter strategy all part of the game.

When you have an element in a game that can cause other elements of the game to become non functioning or that have 0 realistic counters that is unhealthy gameplay.

An example of unhealthy gameplay would be if a weapon was added to the game that "tethered" your ship and an enemy ship to each other and for as long as you were in your ship neither your nor the ship you were tethered to could use any systems generate power or shields or move In all actuality this weapon would be completely balanced it has the same effect on both sides but it is unhealthy because it negates any strategy or counterplay literally all you would need is a friend to come with you and it completely eliminates the ability for a player to fly or play the game alone at any time because 2 people one in a shutdown ship and another in real weapons ship could destroy you and you could do nothing you couldn't counter it you couldn't run from it all you can do is sit there and die hence unhealthy.

Right now warheads when combined with a propulsion system are in the same boat you know they exist but there isn't really anything you can do against them sure there are some incredibly impractical solutions like covering your whole station in timed pulse blasts or putting 1 think hulls every 7 blocks in a sphere around your station but those aren't really counters as they require both more resources more time and less fun than they other person has just so they can't use an "unhealthy" tactic against you.

basically what you are saying would be the same as if you said well the ship shutdown weapon is balanced so just don't leave your homebase and no one can use it against you thats not viable either.

 

[Lecic]

Honestly, if you dont want it blown up faction base it or move to a carebear server.
PD targeting warheads/neutral/ever complex issues?
Ill jump bomb it if I feel like your station deserves it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but... you DON'T want warhead torpedoes to be counterable?

 

[Tunk]

Well you can make as many counters as you like, hell I'm all for attributing warhead damage to the last player to enter the ships docking chain or interact with its logic.

The point is though, someone will find a way to abuse explosives, it is the nature of sandboxes and why many sandbox servers ban things like TNT, explosives, fire, etc as well as provide protection plugins/features.
If its not invulnerable, it will be destroyed.

 

[lilheartless]

Well you can make as many counters as you like, hell I'm all for attributing warhead damage to the last player to enter the ships docking chain or interact with its logic.

The point is though, someone will find a way to abuse explosives, it is the nature of sandboxes and why many sandbox servers ban things like TNT, explosives, fire, etc as well as provide protection plugins/features.
If its not invulnerable, it will be destroyed.

ur actually right its human nature to abuse things for quick and easy gain or out of anger, you can limit this however by making it difficult, time consuming, expensive, or impractical. As it stands right now warheads are incredibly easily abused. Like most things in life there is no perfect all encompassing solution to this problem, there are ways to make it not worthwhile to 99.9% of the community which is worth doing.... at least in my opinion.