I'm not really sure why you seem so offended...
That's how I talk. You may interpret it however you feel like but it remains how I talk.
You act like my suggestion is some sort of personal attack against you and your way of playing the game.
Let's be honest here, when you're suggesting changing the mechanics of the game to prevent/mitigate some aspect of it you don't like but other people do you are in fact asking the devs to restrict other people's way of playing this sandbox game.
The thing is, I agree, interior space filled with doors is cheesy and I'm not a fan of it. So I'll play on servers where the rules say not to do it, and the people that want to do it will play on servers that allow it. Problem solved without needing any additional development resources allocated to it.
but I'd appreciate it if you actually talked about the ideas I proposed rather than attacking me personally.
I did. I provided multiple examples of why creating mechanics to stop people from filling their ship with doors is pointless. You appear to be offended by devil's advocacy. That's too bad because devil's advocacy is a valid position to argue from in any debated topic.
The closest thing to a "personal attack" in my post was a
critique of using the concept of "immersion" as an argument in favor of anything. I stand by that
critique. Immersion is subjective and my idea of what constitutes it is just as valid as, and is often going to be dichotomous to, everyone else's. Which renders an appeal to immersion an unconvincing argument that only works on people who already agree with the suggestion it's being used to argue in favor of.
Please refrain from characterizing animosity towards a particular type of argument, reasoning, or position as animosity towards the person making/holding it. If everyone took a critique of their arguments, reasoning, and positions as personal attacks on themselves all debates would degrade into an endless exchange of moral high ground fallacies.
Now, what is it that has you so offended? Was it my proposal to implement hacking of doors/turrets? Astronaut holographic diversions? Bubble shields?
At this point I actually am offended by your choosing to assume offence. I'll just have to shrug that off though. I suggest you do the same.
This thread was about using build inhibitors and/or some other methods to stop people from closing doors that fill up the internal cavities of their ships and trapping people. Everything I said in my post prior to quoting you is directed at that notion and is meant to establish it's futility (as the saying goes "there's more than one way to skin a cat"). That is why I didn't start the post by quoting you.
Once I quote you, I am specifically addressing you for the paragraph following the quote, and then again addressing you by name for the final paragraph. Although, when I refer to server-side rules being a better method of achieving the desired goal of not having ships flying around with door-filled interiors I admit that is somewhat directed at you as you can implement and enforce any rules you like on your server.
Now as for hacking doors. Blast doors are called blast doors because they are more resistant to damage than plex/glass doors. How long will this hacking take? If it's more time than it takes to shoot through a door why would anyone hack a door? If it's less then whats the point in even having heavily armored doors when the meta is hacking doors open instead of blasting through them?
Come to think of it, how is it you'd be hacking them anyways? Have you never watched a sci-fi and wondered who these people are that think its a good idea to put wireless controls or convenient access panels on the outside of their blast doors for any techie armed with a futuristic ipad to hack into?
As for hacking turrets, technically that's tangential to this threads title, but I'll bite. How's that going to work? Would I be able to hack each of your ship's turrets and render them useless without firing a single shot at any of them? Would it just be the anti-personnel ones? What if I just set my internal turrets to act like external ones, or to have no AI at all and then just switch over to their cores to manually shoot intruders with them?
As for astronaut holographic diversions. Thumbs up. The best way to get a person past a mounted gunnery position is to overwhelm/distract it by providing more targets to shoot at than it can possibly take out. Body armor and expendable npc "red shirts" are also a potential solution to the problem of single module turrets being powerful enough to insta-kill astronauts.
Someone already covered bubble shields and the problems inherent in trying to implement them in SM and I'd just be repeating them. I do wish they were feasible without building a giant bubble of forcefields around my ship (which i've done before).
My suggestions add new challenges and difficulties to overcome
Internal space filled with blast doors is already a challenge and difficult to overcome. Solutions are available in game. Clear enough space to spawn a cube and place a cannon on it, start carving your way through. Carry a rocket launcher, clear enough space that you can fire it without the blast radius hitting you, and cut tunnels through the doors. Suggesting doors be hackable, or be unable to close when a build inhibitor is nearby, are things that make blast doors less challenging and less difficult to overcome.
Now, you do bring up an interesting obstacle in boarding, which I believe does need a solution in order for boarding to be more viable.
If the person who's ship you are boarding is not interested in the idea of having FPS firefights on their decks then boarding their ship won't be viable. They'll line the walls with weapons outputs that fire using logic, have no interior at all, etc. Someone that doesn't want anyone to ever take their ship by boarding is going to find a way to make it nigh-on impossible to do so no matter how many new mechanics are implemented to try and make it more feasible. Boarding is only something that's ever going to happen when everyone involved, the borders and the boarded, like the idea of it.
But then what of their faction module? What if it's buried somewhere deep within the ship?
If they want to hide their faction module and make you carve their ship to pieces to find it, they will. It doesn't matter if thats cheesy. If person A wants people to be able to capture their ships in a mostly intact state, then they'll build their ships that way. If person B wants people to have to destroy most of their ship just to be able capture the tattered remains, then they'll build their ships that way. That is the nature of the sandbox.
If that doesn't sit right with someone, they can set up their own sandbox (a server) and make it a rule that faction modules have to be in a visible position. Look how the current ship building contest handles this very issue. There is a rule requiring the module to be visible. That means that person B still gets to build ships that have to be mostly destroyed in order to capture them, they just cannot submit those ship to the contest. That's a problem they solved without any need to add or remove mechanics from the game.
How about we have constructive conversation, and leave the personal attacks to 4chan.
...because suggesting I'm acting like this is 4chan is in no way a personal attack, right?
How about we have a constructive conversation, and leave over-sensitivity and spurious claims of personal attacks to twitter and tumblr?
There, now we've both done it.
Thank you for your time.
