Do not make this game die

[Edymnion]

Hell, I still don't allow faction members. I strictly 1 man band it.

 

[MacThule]

Eve? That's your big example? I've actually played that game.

Remember, the question wasn't name a game that Dr. Whammy enjoys. The question was name a successful game where player's stuff could be destroyed or stolen. I answered, and you don't like that so you're going after the quality of the game but you cannot deny that Eve has been a successful game. So I have correctly answered the question you avoided my question with. You've bought yourself some time. Can you answer now? Ever?

Name a successful game filled with massive variety of weapons, several classes of armor, shields, defensive and offensive buffs and debuffs - absolute shittons of combat related systems - where all players are able to be 100% invulnerable 90% of the time and are very difficult to engage when vulnerable for brief periods.

I contend that there is no such game and cannot be. SM is not going to be the first warless war game to break the mold because most gamers don't want a war game without wars. If SM continues to focus extensively on weapons and armor and shield systems, military fleets (fleet attack, fleet defend), and other military game aspects and continues to prohibit productive military action by making players totally invulnerable, it will fold sooner rather than later.

Yes - many players enjoy simply designing. That does not prove that most players don't want to fight, and nothing prevents them designing in SP or on carebear servers regardless of HB invulnerability status in vanilla MP.

Unless you can come up with that example I don't see your claims regarding what players want as having much merit.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Remember, the question wasn't name a game that Dr. Whammy enjoys. The question was name a successful game where player's stuff could be destroyed or stolen. I answered, and you don't like that so you're going after the quality of the game but you cannot deny that Eve has been a successful game. So I have correctly answered the question you avoided my question with. You've bought yourself some time. Can you answer now? Ever?

First, your Eve Online example is a weak argument since you can ONLY lose your stuff when you fly and not while you're asleep. POS is an option in the game, not a requirement. Thus, your example is invalid. Second of all, no matter how you want to twist it, StarMade is not a war game. Could it be played as one? sure, but that's not its focus.

Name a successful game filled with massive variety of weapons, several classes of armor, shields, defensive and offensive buffs and debuffs - absolute shittons of combat related systems - where all players are able to be 100% invulnerable 90% of the time and are very difficult to engage when vulnerable for brief periods.

That would arguably be a lot of games since in most cases, you don't run the risk of losing anything until after you leave the hangar. On the other hand, let's not forget that this isn't about losing while awake and playing the game. It's about having your crap blown up/stolen while your offline. Not many games allow that; not even your precious Eve. If you want to argue, argue to counter the point your opponent is making. Don't create a straw argument to fight an idea that never existed in the first place. To do so just hurts your credibility.

I contend that there is no such game and cannot be. SM is not going to be the first warless war game to break the mold because most gamers don't want a war game without wars. If SM continues to focus extensively on weapons and armor and shield systems, military fleets (fleet attack, fleet defend), and other military game aspects and continues to prohibit productive military action by making players totally invulnerable, it will fold sooner rather than later.

Again; not a war game. Your assertion that people should be punished for having a life outside of a video game because you like war is immature and unreasonable.

Yes - many players enjoy simply designing. That does not prove that most players don't want to fight, and nothing prevents them designing in SP or on carebear servers regardless of HB invulnerability status in vanilla MP.

Unless you can come up with that example I don't see your claims regarding what players want as having much merit.

Actually, I'm not interested in your merit or in solving your little puzzle. It's irrelevant since my position was never about whether or not people should be subject to being defeated in PVP. It is, and always has been about equalization so that new players can stand a chance via tactics and special weapons. You on the other hand, started peddling the idea that people need to keep 24/7 tabs on their stuff to avoid losing everything. I'm not sure if you've been reading the other members' posts but they don't seem to share you enthusiasm for that.

Also, lose the condescending attitude. It makes you sound like an ass.

 

[MacThule]

Dude. Chill out.

No one has demanded outlawing non-PvP play in SM. Stop pretending we are.

Your assertion that people should be punished for having a life outside of a video game

You on the other hand, started peddling the idea that people need to keep 24/7 tabs on their stuff to avoid losing everything.

I seem to have forgotten writing those things... where was that exactly?

Actually, I'm not interested in your merit or in solving your little puzzle.

I bet.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Dude. Chill out.

No one has demanded outlawing non-PvP play in SM. Stop pretending we are.





I seem to have forgotten writing those things... where was that exactly?



I bet.

More strawman arguments? You have fun with that. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject.

 

[lilheartless]

Name a successful game filled with massive variety of weapons, several classes of armor, shields, defensive and offensive buffs and debuffs - absolute shittons of combat related systems - where all players are able to be 100% invulnerable 90% of the time and are very difficult to engage when vulnerable for brief periods.

I contend that there is no such game and cannot be. SM is not going to be the first warless war game to break the mold because most gamers don't want a war game without wars. If SM continues to focus extensively on weapons and armor and shield systems, military fleets (fleet attack, fleet defend), and other military game aspects and continues to prohibit productive military action by making players totally invulnerable, it will fold sooner rather than later.

I can't help but feel like the answer you gave. Eve, is also the answer to the question you asked.

Eve is a game of PVP by CHOICE I've played eve for thousands of hours.

Ive done all sorts of things casual mining for money, ratting, missioning, faction warfare, o sec living fighting raiding, low sec pirating, bout the only thing i didn't do was actual industrial work cause i just didn't think leveling the skills was worth it to make ships that someone else was already making and i could just buy.

As a matter of fact i've participated in every kind of pvp eve offered when i played including cutthroat market pvp where i made enough money in about 2 months too keep my subscription for almost 2 years.

When i was in a mining corporation we mined safely and securely in hi sec 99.9 percent of the time... actually i can only remember 2 times when i was ever attacked in high sec while mining and both times the damage the suicide squads did to our operations cost us around 2 hours worth of time, while it cost our attackers probably 1/4th of that along with the hour... 1/2 hour penalty that prevented them from getting in a ship of any kind without dying to concord meaning it cost our attackers almost as much in time as it cost us in time and we didn't care cause in the grand scheme of things we lost basically nothing, we would be slightly miffed for about 15 minutes while we got another orca set up and then we were back on the field mining again as if nothing ever happened ....... and here is the kicker there was absolutely nothing that they could do to stop us they couldn't destroy our hundreds of backup mining ships and if you aren't an idiot they couldn't even pod us so they couldn't even take our implants.


On the Flip side I remember when i was in a faction warfare corporation fighting for the Caldari, I would be in on average 2 - 3 1v1 fights with ships of a similar weight class a day as well as probably 1 - 2 small group skirmishes consisting of about 5 - 10 ships on each side of a cruiser size or smaller, and the reason for this large difference in fighting was because of what i CHOSE to do what profession i CHOSE.


Sure you can use Eve's null sec as an example of YOUR STUFF IS NEVER SAFE SOMEONE CAN ALWAYS GET YOU, except for the part where you had 24 hours to mount a defense once your shields dropped to half and could form a force and put together a well thought out defense during this time to have a "reasonable/fun" engagement or to get all ur shit and bail out as fast as you could.
Ofc along with this you already made the CHOICE to be in nul sec space you weren't forced into a pvp area you could have stayed safe but you chose to go into that environment when you didn't have to and should expect that fighting will happen.


Eve online also has a lot of things in in to encourage pvp for instance "faction warfare" leads to bonuses for the faction you are fighting for, unique drops only obtainable through the faction warfare currency "instanced forced FAIR combat situations.

Non instanced combat took place over desirable locations in low or null sec based around again bonuses for controlling territories access to rare/valuable asteroid belts because of the asteroid re spawn mechanics.

HOWEVER @ no time were you completely at risk of losing everything you had in eve unless you CHOSE to bring EVERYTHING into an environment where it was @ risk.


And as far as being 100% invulnerable 90% of the time i already stated but will reiterate that i spent 2 months station trading LITERALLY not undocking from Jita arguably the largest trading hub in eve where i made enough isk in those 2 months to pay for a subscription to the game for 2 years got to enjoy meeting and talking too thousands of players and leveling my character in a 0 risk environment.


Sorry for the long post but some of your arguments are incredibly flawed or leaving out major details that i thought needed to be addressed.

one of Starmade's biggest issues is its lack of objectives, with no respawning/semi unlimited resources as well as the lack of actual "rare" or hard to obtain (special/unique) drops, loot, or materials there is literally NOTHING to fight over its literally a loss for both sides in almost all circumstances because there is NOTHING to gain from fighting.

Give people a reason to fight and they will fight.

Edited for grammatical errors

 

[Vader_is_Bored]

I think, all the righteous anger aside, MacThule's basic complaint (correct me if I'm wrong) is:
"I've got this giant, awesome, kick-ass war-fleet, but there is nothing to DO with it!"
He's built his fighting ships, now he wants to fight someone. But the playerbase is small, so there is no one online to fight. So, if no one is online to fight, he might as well attack their bases. But their bases are invincible, so there is still nothing to do!
(That a good summary?)


This is a very valid position and I share the feeling of pointlessness, but I don't think something as simple as changes to HB invincibility will give us the ACTION we are craving.

However, all is not lost! Go take a look at Suggestions #3 & #4 of the IN-DEVELOPMENT section of the Frequent Suggestions Megathread here on the forum. Once that sh*t gets implemented, I foresee a lot more PVP opportunities, because people will actually have a REASON to undock their giant ships and fly them around. And, there'll be at least FIVE different NPC factions for us to pecker-slap while we're looking for actual humans to fight!

So, don't give up on the game. If the pointlessness is too much right now, take a break. Come back in a month or two and see what's new then. Sooner or later Starmade WILL deliver the sort of game-play you're asking for.

 

[MacThule]

Sorry for the long post but some of your arguments are incredibly flawed or leaving out major details that i thought needed to be addressed.

No worries - I haven't made a real suggestion on this thread regarding how stations can be successfully be made vulnerable without exposing players to permakill. I have here though, because I wasn't immediately attacked by rabid posters who just want to argue about what's impossible and accuse people of video-fascism instead of dialoging about how things can be improved.

The problem in the first place is that the discussion was never even allowed to go there because as soon as anyone mentions scrapping the 100% invulnerable status quo, reactionaries jump all over the dialogue screaming that we hate people and "want to punish them for having lives" and other such utterly absurd bullshit. So the discussion is never able to progress to the point that proponents of terminating the 100% invulnerability rule can elaborate on the many ways it can work and why because of the avalanche of ad hominem and strawman attacks.

What you say about Eve is correct. Note that Eve is not a point I brought up or comparison I tried to make - it was a response to Whammy asking a question. A correct response - he asked for an example of a successful game where player assets could be lost while offline. That *IS* possible in Eve. And he only asked because he could not answer my question about one where they can never be lost while a player is on or offline).

Note that I've repeatedly stated here that no one is trying to propose allowing all of a player's things to be destroyed/stolen while they are offline. They never were. In Eve certain assets can be destroyed offline in certain situations. Note that in Eve, players can't actually "play" much while in an invulnerable station. Also note that when a player leaves the station, he isn't nearly impossible to locate and attack as he is in SM (even with good scanners & inhibitors), so PvP is alive and well because, well... it's possible.

So I liked your post, but I'm not sure which parts of my "argument" you feel are so deeply flawed...

And to re-iterate (as I did to Whammy) I am not interested in arguing about this. Whammy was putting words in someone's mouth "what you are suggesting is... " and the person he was dealing like that was someone whose position on the topic I agree with. I've not attacked anyone else's suggestion. I simply tried to point out a straw-man argument that was being used to attack a position I support.

Go back to my first post on this thread and check it.

He accused one proponent of modifying the 100% invulnerable HB rule of trying to change the game so all of everybody's stuff could be killed the second they log off, which is not what that position means and not what was suggested, and my response was:

Suggesting changes to HB protection is not equivalent to suggesting allowing players be able to be perma-killed.

Then he immediately wheels on me and accuses me of demanding the same non-sense and accuses me of all kinds of things I have never said nor implied.

For saying that he was accusing someone of proposing something they never proposed.

My interest here is only in preventing Whammy or anyone else from slandering others saying that they are saying things which they aren't, particularly if I agree with their position on HB invulnerability

 

[Edymnion]

The problem in the first place is that the discussion was never even allowed to go there because as soon as anyone mentions scrapping the 100% invulnerable status quo, reactionaries jump all over the dialogue screaming that we hate people and "want to punish them for having lives" and other such utterly absurd bullshit.

I'll just say this.

The day 100% invincibility of faction homes goes away, for any reason, is the day I stop playing Starmade and never look back.

I don't care what justifications someone comes up with, the ability to completely wipe someone off the map (and face it, that is what destroying a faction home means, wiping out every last block someone owns so that they are incapable of starting over) is a HORRIBLE mechanic to allow, for any reason, and will only be abused.

 

[MrFURB]

Self-fulfilling 'us vs them' mindset aside, seems the thread has jumped towards the topic of homebase invulnerability and whether it is healthy for the PVP scene.

I'm... Er, I'm convinced that homebase protection isn't the entire problem. I'm perfectly fine with having a single solid point of 'this is me' that stays on the map even when surrounded by enemies or under heavy attack and I think that is a good idea for more or less the same reasons that other people think so; losing your crap without the chance to put active effort into protecting it sucks, and having a 'big brother' faction making sure you experience the pain of just starting out over and over again is a pretty sure-fire way of turning a bustling server lonely.

But we're still dealing with not having enough fights, either because the reasons to fight aren't there in the first place or aren't worth the monotonous material grind. (Wouldn't it be neat to log in after a day of work and see a big chunk of ore and crystal filtering through your factory setup from all the fully automated system mining that your fleets have been doing while you were offline?)
I'd like to steer the discussion towards making good reasons to go out and fight. Your combat ships are made of valuable blocks, so what if there was something to fight for that was more valuable than those blocks? Would people go out and begin effectively trading their combat resources for whatever new point or rare resource or faction thingy is added?

One idea that has been in my head for a long time but hasn't been turned into specifics yet is changing what a base can do. Have a set of natural limitations on how much a single base can support so that while two or three people with just enough ships/materials to start on something big would feel comfortable in a single base, they wouldn't be able to support any expansion without other bases in different locations. You couldn't have all of your huge navy in one dock. You couldn't have all of your hundreds of millions of resources processed in one base. It's hard to come up with those limitations in ways that don't feel arbitrary but I think that those changes, along with improved station defenses, would make territory control more interesting and faction war worthwhile.

I'm sure there are lots of other ways to shove people out of their homebase and into the dark, let's hear them!

 

[Crashmaster]

Use HP system to defeat a homebase without causing it any block damage making it vulnerable and shutting down its turrets' AI. Player character or hired crew must be used to take-over and occupy foreign homebase. While homebase is occupied occupational forces can try to collect the resources from that base's automated mining/ manufacturing systems. Homebase possession by occupiers expires and has large cool-down. Resources are carried out on-foot by departing forces.

Astronaut defenders and hired crew can be useful as the final line preventing intruders from completing the occupation mechanic.
One faction-member could re-take the homebase from AI-based occupational forces.
Killing the occupiers causes them to drop what resources they had collected.
Non-turreted astronaut traps/ spider launchers.

 

[lilheartless]

snip

So I liked your post, but I'm not sure which parts of my "argument" you feel are so deeply flawed...

snip

I didn't mean to come off as saying that you were wrong i actually agree with you for the most part when i said arguments were flawed i was speaking directly about your argument about eve having loss of property while you are offline all the time and that ALL of your things were at risk.

I'm not entirely sure whether i think homebase protection should be changed or not.... I know that I think there should be some areas in the Starmade universe where you are 100% COMPLETELY safe although i think that there should be alot of areas where you aren't.

At the same point I don't see any reason to remove homebase protection from anywhere until there is a REWARD for doing so, as it stands right now pvp is all RISK no REWARD. There is nothing to fight over, nothing to defend, and therefore nothing to fight for.


(Edit: in my mind i typed it but it wasn't in the paragraph below so i'll just add it up here the "safe area" the starter galaxy and surrounding galaxies would still have "homebase protection" and it might potentially apply to all stations, you could build in the safezone as much as you want storage production transportation. The reason this is allowed is that there is a limit to the resources available in these safe areas. On the flip side if you want to take the "risk" and not be "safe" you can expand out of the safezone where resources are more plentiful and potentially be able to acquire resources unavailable as well as having bonuses to production at the cost of having to protect your things 24/7. which i believe would be a good tradeoff)

I really only see a few ways starmade pvp will actually be a thing the first way would be to reduce the amount of resources you can find in the starter galaxy and probably the galaxies directly surrounding the starter one. ala you can find resources to make cannons salvagers ifrastructure but maybe not find things to make "advanced systems" or special things. Second increase the amount of these "rare" resources outside of the "safe zone" and also Give bonuses to production and manufacturing outside of the safezone this would encourage players and factions to keep their storage/shipping facilities in an area that is safe while moving their production and harvesting operations outside of the safe zone for more reward.
This will have to go hand in hand with decreasing the overall amount or resources per galaxy and then setting some kind of renewable resources that people want to fight over, as it stands right now there is no reason to fight over resources cause they are too abundant, oh someones mining here well let me just fly 16 sectors over and mine asteroids and planets for my titan there instead.


Another way that i could see pvp going is to have actual server generated events that come with the npc update, this way seems less feasible as i don't know how this game would handle loot distribution for all participating members but its a possibility even if it seems logicstically difficult.


The truth is in a persistant environment there needs to be a way to protect your things but that doesn't need to extend to the whole world, there also needs to be reasons to fight and we are lacking these right now. Its been said time and time again they are coming, fauna, renewable resources, right now the game has been completely focused on building and as such people have no reason to use/risk the things they built in a fight that they have nothing to gain.

Hopefully this will all be fixed by the time the game enters late alpha / beta

 

[Nickizzy]

I'll just say this.

The day 100% invincibility of faction homes goes away, for any reason, is the day I stop playing Starmade and never look back.

I don't care what justifications someone comes up with, the ability to completely wipe someone off the map (and face it, that is what destroying a faction home means, wiping out every last block someone owns so that they are incapable of starting over) is a HORRIBLE mechanic to allow, for any reason, and will only be abused.

Isn't this a big generization? What if homebase protection only could protect a certain size of station? It wouldn't be a homebase as much as a "backup", maybe not allow turrets on it(turret dockers). It would have just enough space for people to get started and make some factories.

It's about having your crap blown up/stolen while your offline.

This is the core of the issue. Some of it can be solved through better NPC stations to distract players, some of it can be solved through different homebase systems^^^, some can be somlved through more rewarding combat, and some through player attitude.

 

[Edymnion]

Isn't this a big generization? What if homebase protection only could protect a certain size of station? It wouldn't be a homebase as much as a "backup", maybe not allow turrets on it(turret dockers). It would have just enough space for people to get started and make some factories.

No, it is a statement of fact.

A homebase being destroyed is like playing Hardcore mode in Diablo. You die and your character is deleted forever. Except even worse because now you don't even have the ability to restart on the server by yourself because you don't have the ship or the means to get a ship to reach a new system on your own. Destroying a homebase is, in no uncertain terms, one player banning another player from the server.

I have seen coordinated griefer attacks from people that raze servers for the lulz. I have been targetted by such attacks (along with others on the server). Its not a matter of fighting back, its not a matter of not pissing people on the server off, its simply a matter of "50 people logged in at 3 am and went on a killing spree, destroying anything that wasn't a faction home." I have seen (and had) warp gate stations with millions of shields and enough firepower to take down a large cruiser destroyed as part of that razing.

I honestly don't give two craps about your ability to wage total pvp war. I don't care that you don't get to wipe people out completely so that you can't really "win" the game. I don't care that you get frustrated by people "turtling" by "hiding in their faction home". I care about being able to play the game at all.

And the instant homebase invincibility is removed, for any reason, thats it. I'm done, I'm out, I'm uninstalling Starmade and never looking back. To me, homebase invincibility is the *ONLY* thing that makes the game playable.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Ok. Cool; we're back on idea mode... I'm going to expand on my original idea and see what you guys think. I think you'll like it but this is going to be a long one so please be patient.

Balancing PVP

If you want to make combat balanced so that titans are not the ONLY thing used in PVP. There is only one answer; Warheads... You've seen our crazy contraptions. You also know that warhead damage is abysmally low. Give it a buff and I guarantee you'll see more people willing give PVP a go. Combat will depend more on skill and strategy than size and strength. Capitals will still be ridiculously tough opponents; just not complete invulnerable to smaller ships. Creativity and strategy will be rewarded while the weakness of brute force and uncreativity can be exploited. If you want to win, build well, plan well and fight well.


Justification for PVP

I think the upcoming NPC additions could be used to give depth and purpose to PVP. Basically you could have procedurally generated AI controlled factions that take up a lot of star systems. They'll exhibit the following characteristics.

1) They are territorial and may attack you like pirates for building a base or mining in their space.

2) If they can't take down a trespasser, they'll hire other players to get rid of said trespasser and attack their base(s); offering rewards if you succeed.

3) Similar to an alliance request with a player, you can request trade from NPC factions. In a trade agreement, a player puts credits or items into their own shop and submits trade request for items to the NPC faction who will then send trade ships to the player's shop; to buy, sell or trade the goods listed in the agreement. The shipments run on a steady basis via trade routes; visible on the galaxy map. Players not aligned with you or these minor faction(s) can intercept the trade ships, attack then steal cargo; disrupting trade and prompting the minor faction to demand retaliation on their behalf from their player allies or risk losing the trade arrangement. Also, if you repeatedly fail to stock your shop with the required credits/items, when the trade ship(s) arrive(s), the trade agreement may be broken by the NPC.

4) An AI fleet command can be added; "patrol trade route". Your fleet will patrol the trade route, escort the trade ships and respond to any attacks on trade ships along that route. Providing escorts results in a lower cost for trade goods. Failure to escort does the opposite.

5) Take away the bonuses and penalties for mining so that "claim jumpers" have at least some reason to trespass in other player's space in the first place.


The home base issue

There's a responsible and balanced way to handle this issue besides encouraging people to camp at their base or just throwing them to the wolves. Here's an example. I call it "mass protection threshold". here's how it works.

1) The home base itself (planet or station) is invulnerable. Nukes can't destroy your planet, nor can anyone from another faction salvage from it.

2) You can dock a limited amount of dock-able mass (ships/turrets) to your home base and it too will be invulnerable.

3) Any docked mass that exceeds the basic mass limit has an energy cost that scales linearly with the amount of docked mass.

4) As you reach the power regen soft cap, you will inevitably be unable to support protection of the docked entities, which then become vulnerable, while the home base itself remains invulnerable. During an enemy attack, when your docked mass drops below your power/mass requirement (due to blocks destroyed), your docked entities will regain protection.

5) Docked reactors can assist in power generation but their mass is also counted in the home base power requirement.

6) Server config options.
- Base dock-able mass amount: how much mass you can dock before power consumption takes effect.
- Docked mass energy costs (e/sec): Set to 0 to turn off all power/mass restrictions.
- Home base vulnerable when power/mass requirement exceeded: True/False. Set to true for hard core, PVP or false to be a weanie.

Example time... If the server's basic mass limit is set to 10,000 with a power requirement of 250 energy/sec, you could, for example, dock 10,000 mass worth of ships and turrets at zero energy/sec. For anything over 10,000, you would need to provide 250 energy/sec for ever unit of mass. So at the 2 million soft cap, you could dock an additional 8000 mass to your base, for a total of 18,000.

These numbers are just an example so don't take them literally.

Well, that's all I've got for now. My caffeine has worn off. What are your thoughts on this.

 

[Nickizzy]

If this turns into an argument someone stop me.

you don't even have the ability to restart on the server by yourself because you don't have the ship or the means to get a ship to reach a new system on your own. Destroying a homebase is, in no uncertain terms, one player banning another player from the server.

As long as they didn't just put all of everything they own into one base, they should just lose tons of stuff. It in itself solves the "single base" problem. By removing invincibility you create the need for escape gates and backup stations. Even if someone actually put everything they own to the block on one station and then got destroied, they should still have blocks from their inventory, most people always have at least a ship core and you should have at least some power and an engine. If you die and it is one of those Hardcore servers where you lose all your inventory when you die(and if you die when they attack this means they are just stronger and attacked you), you still have some credits. Other players could help you to.

coordinated griefer attacks

Okay, greifer attacks. Antiastronaut turrets, maybe some missile beam and cannon cannon push to keep them back.

50 people logged in at 3 am and went on a killing spree, destroying anything that wasn't a faction home.

Are these greifers or is this some really big cool faction?

I have seen (and had) warp gate stations with millions of shields and enough firepower to take down a large cruiser destroyed as part of that razing.

This is just one really big, awsome, powerful faction purging the galaxy. The problem isn't that the stations are going to become vunerable to little guys with peashooters, but that they are getting outshot by a simply a stronger fighting force.

 

[Edymnion]

This is just one really big, awsome, powerful faction purging the galaxy. The problem isn't that the stations are going to become vunerable to little guys with peashooters, but that they are getting outshot by a simply a stronger fighting force.

No, these were griefers. They were all throw away accounts that were not on the server prior to the attack, and never logged in again after the attack. We all compared our individual enemies list for names, and checked against the server logs. They were brand new.

And everybody got hit. If it was somebody on the server, they shot themselves in the foot and then stuck around to rebuild? That makes no sense.

And yes, one of my gates had at least a dozen anti-astronaut turrets all around it, again as many PDTs, it still went down overnight.

News flash, there are entire boards of people that do nothing but organized trollings of message boards and attacks on games. They literally do it just for the lulz. If you haven't encountered them on the internet, consider yourself lucky.

 

[kiraen]

No, it is a statement of fact.

A homebase being destroyed is like playing Hardcore mode in Diablo. You die and your character is deleted forever. Except even worse because now you don't even have the ability to restart on the server by yourself because you don't have the ship or the means to get a ship to reach a new system on your own. Destroying a homebase is, in no uncertain terms, one player banning another player from the server.

I have seen coordinated griefer attacks from people that raze servers for the lulz. I have been targetted by such attacks (along with others on the server). Its not a matter of fighting back, its not a matter of not pissing people on the server off, its simply a matter of "50 people logged in at 3 am and went on a killing spree, destroying anything that wasn't a faction home." I have seen (and had) warp gate stations with millions of shields and enough firepower to take down a large cruiser destroyed as part of that razing.

I honestly don't give two craps about your ability to wage total pvp war. I don't care that you don't get to wipe people out completely so that you can't really "win" the game. I don't care that you get frustrated by people "turtling" by "hiding in their faction home". I care about being able to play the game at all.

And the instant homebase invincibility is removed, for any reason, thats it. I'm done, I'm out, I'm uninstalling Starmade and never looking back. To me, homebase invincibility is the *ONLY* thing that makes the game playable.

I almost completely agree with this. It's like I wrote this post myself.
The one change I would make: If they remove HI I would just give up on public servers. There is only one asshole to deal with in SP and I know his tricks. No need to drop the game completely.

If they want to limit the size, firepower, or power of Homebases, I'm fine with that. Hell, limit all three and add more nerfs on top. Make it a config option, so those of us that want to can avoid hardcore pvp servers. Iirc, in/vulnerability will depend on Faction Points, logging on regularly will maintain your protection.

But removing invulnerability completely is the death of multiplayer, griefers like Nickizzy will kill it.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Nickizzy,

To understand the concern, you need to try to see this from a different point of view...

I'm a diplomatic player but I have a highly diabolical side. When I join a server, I build stealth ships, stockpile personal weapons and abuse the crap out of warheads to build a myriad of exotic weapons/equipment, specifically designed for tight quarters, precision strikes.

How would you like it if I got all my buddies to track your movements so I could go to your base while you were offline, breach it with warheads, torch all your faction modules and destroy/steal everything you own? Suppose this kept happening to you over and over again? Just how long would you continue to play this game?

 

[Nickizzy]

removing invulnerability completely is the death of multiplayer, griefers like Nickizzy will kill it.

Ow! Talk about a slap to the pride! Actually, that sounds nice: Nickizzy, Serverkiller:D
You are actually right, limiting HB size and not allowing turrets would be much better. (Make it not as strong as a normal station or just a place that you have as a backup or startup).
[DOUBLEPOST=1460740147,1460739125][/DOUBLEPOST]

No, these were griefers. They were all throw away accounts that were not on the server prior to the attack, and never logged in again after the attack. We all compared our individual enemies list for names, and checked against the server logs. They were brand new.

And everybody got hit. If it was somebody on the server, they shot themselves in the foot and then stuck around to rebuild? That makes no sense.

And yes, one of my gates had at least a dozen anti-astronaut turrets all around it, again as many PDTs, it still went down overnight.

News flash, there are entire boards of people that do nothing but organized trollings of message boards and attacks on games. They literally do it just for the lulz. If you haven't encountered them on the internet, consider yourself lucky.

Then there is something seriously wrong with that server. There is no way anyone should be able to get on and overnight, probably in less than 3 hours, get a better ship than established player's bases, and then still have time to wreck through the galaxy destorying everything.