My two cents on encouraging PvP conflict in a stagnant universe

[madman Captain]

I agree with Red's ideas but in the current state of the game it would just another reason to not play survival.

I want to involve my own problems with PvP (or better with combat itself).

1. The obvious: The horrible lag of feedback, no flashy lights, no fancy explosions, no camerashake
on impacts or cool sounds or soundtracks or something else. I personaly fight for the joy of a good battle in the first way and for victory in the second way.

2. Lag of complexity in combat: The most combats I have seen are following the same standard face your enemy and hope you make more damage than him (seriously thats sound like call of duty with the difference that you can absorb more shoots).
And the worst of all this work regardless of the ships size (exept of titans, they simply lag you to death). Fighters, corvetts, frigates, cruisers they all work like helicopters.
I think fighting would more interresting if we would implement some MOBA like things like active (not toggle) abillitys like sort range teleports, barrier shields, speed boosts, different kinds of disables, temp. buffs, repairing abillitys, active AMS,
missiles as abillity and not as weapon, you know someting that I as pilot actively use, things that can turn the tide of the battle based on my skill as pilot or tactican and not only as builder.


3. The "lie" with the weapon complexity: Sorry but no, 20 weapons systems and most of them effectivly just alter the firerate, and 9 effect systems where 3 completly useless, one more mostly useless and another one not effective in large weapons.
Here, I think that make weapons more complex: accuracy, spread, recoil, impact force, gauge, salvos, charge ups, magazines, cooldowns, armor penetation based on gauge, firerate, range, AOE, overcharges, bulletspeed. Pretty much possebillitys to make weapons unique or not?

4. The flight behaivor: I cant really point on it or explain, but I dont like to fly ships (regartless of size).

5. Ship management/controll: Mostly a problem on large ships but turret management or energy management simply not exsist.

6. I want "Cruise controll"

​

This are my personal problems with fighting and I dont think that enforcing players to fight when fighting is shit increasing combat on servers its just decrease the amount of players on servers.

So my idea: first fix the fighting mechanics then encourage players to use it.

 

[Ithirahad]

I think fighting would more interresting if we would implement some MOBA like things like active (not toggle) abillitys like sort range teleports, barrier shields, speed boosts, different kinds of disables, temp. buffs, repairing abillitys, active AMS,
missiles as abillity and not as weapon, you know someting that I as pilot actively use, things that can turn the tide of the battle based on my skill as pilot or tactican and not only as builder.​

That's the sort of mechanic that the Chamber system opens up. However, I see no reason why missiles are ever going to be anything but a weapon... Heatseeker swarms built with logic are the closest you'll ever get to having them as an 'ability'.

6. I want "Cruise controll"​

Turn off auto-damping in the thrust menu, if you just mean that you don't want to slow down while flying.

 

[madman Captain]

Turn off auto-damping in the thrust menu, if you just mean that you don't want to slow down while flying.

And when I turn the ship 90 degrees to the right? Will it constanly drive forward? No, it drifts sidewards.
I mean that the ship always try to move forward and if I change the direcion of the ship it imidetly gives trust so that it moves stait forward and not drift sidewards plus that it trys to maintain the speed and course against external forces like wormholes or pull/push/stop effects.

 

[Calhoun]

And when I turn the ship 90 degrees to the right? Will it constanly drive forward? No, it drifts sidewards.
I mean that the ship always try to move forward and if I change the direcion of the ship it imidetly gives trust so that it moves stait forward and not drift sidewards plus that it trys to maintain the speed and course against external forces like wormholes or pull/push/stop effects.

So you want an atmospheric flight model in a space game?

 

[Mortiferum]

Why would they? Factions do a good job surviving on just whats in their home system already.

"Opportunistic"

People who are already looking for fights to a certain extent but cannot find them. As I said, hard core turtles cannot be dragged out unless you literally make their HB vulnerable.

It is easier to draw opportunistic PvPers into the fray first.

 

[Reilly Reese]

"Opportunistic"

People who are already looking for fights to a certain extent but cannot find them. As I said, hard core turtles cannot be dragged out unless you literally make their HB vulnerable.

It is easier to draw opportunistic PvPers into the fray first.

I think the point is that unless they are OOB and want to kill the server with waves of NPC ships then they'll only ever need the resources they pull from their home system in order to maintain a decent military.

 

[GDPR 302420]

"Opportunistic"

People who are already looking for fights to a certain extent but cannot find them. As I said, hard core turtles cannot be dragged out unless you literally make their HB vulnerable.

It is easier to draw opportunistic PvPers into the fray first.

Answer the question.

Why would "mining bonuses in certain areas" draw out players when they can already survive just fine with whats in their system?
[doublepost=1504063211,1504062977][/doublepost]

As I said, hard core turtles cannot be dragged out unless you literally make their HB vulnerable.

Mortiferum, you and I both know this.

The idea of conflict drivers is to the PvP players can have an actual reason to fight and hold territory outside their homebase.

If you wan't to have a means of killing the cancerous gameplay tactic that is turtling then go discuss your ideas on this thread Faction Infastructure and Homebase Invulnerability: A solution to permanent turtling

Turtling is a discussion for another thread, this thread is for conflict drivers that isnt "muh bragging rights"

 

[madman Captain]

So you want an atmospheric flight model in a space game?

No and yes. I want a flight model that most space games I know use, for exsample X2, X3, Fractured Space, Avorion, Void Destroyer 2, Starpoint Gemini 2, Dreadghought, Galactic Junk Leauge, Space Engineers, Empyreon Galacic Survival, Starwars Battlefront 2(the old one).

 

[Reilly Reese]

Dreadghought

Most of it's maps are in-atmosphere though m8.

 

[Calhoun]

Battlefront 2(the old one).

has virtually a purely atmospheric model. As much as I love Battlefront II, it has the worst space flight model I've ever seen.

 

[kulbolen]

"My two cents on encouraging PvP conflict in a stagnant universe"

try: making the universe not stagnant.

 

[madman Captain]

Most of it's maps are in-atmosphere though m8.

And? Planets also have gravity and the ships not fall to the ground.

But that bring me to an addional thing on my list with PvP problems

7. Map design: Without large obtracles, dangerzones, cover or oher things that make the battlefields itself interesting, the battle also lost a lot of its fun. possible solution for this would be the battle betwin larger fleets witch create interesting battlefields.​

has virtually a purely atmospheric model. As much as I love Battlefront II, it has the worst space flight model I've ever seen.

To be honest the entire star wars franshise use an mostly atospheric flight model, and most franshises I know explain this fact with some kind of technology that emulate an atospheric flight model. Manuvering thrusters for exsample can do this.

 

[kulbolen]

also, weapons are pretty complex. probably too complex. lol.

 

[madman Captain]

also, weapons are pretty complex. probably too complex. lol.

Did you even read my post? Ok lets explain it different:

Please explain who are the complex, gamechanging, uniques, betwin the following weaponsystems:

CAN
CAN+CAN
CAN+Missile
CAN+Beam
CAN+Pulse​

all systems have the exact same size and no effect systems.

That's the sort of mechanic that the Chamber system opens up. However, I see no reason why missiles are ever going to be anything but a weapon... Heatseeker swarms built with logic are the closest you'll ever get to having them as an 'ability'.

Ok, what I want to say was that I want a change in the targeting mechanismin of guided missiles, its simply anoying that I'm still forced to aim direcly at my enemy when I want to fire a volley of missiles from a couple of inbuild dossal missile launchers, please let them simply work with Lock On (F key).

 

[UndeadPotato]

I've not had a whole lot of experience in PvP due to poor hardware for the majority of the time I've had the game, and I know that you know better in regard to what is a better incentive for such players. I also think your idea in the original post is a viable way to handle the current issue. Hopefully something can be figured out so that I can try PvP in a larger scale, as I've felt like I was missing out on a major aspect of the game for a while. I do however have to disagree with this though:

Nobody wants to trade, its a dynamic that a lot of serversiders and some forumside factions follow, they all want to be leaders of empires that launch a conquest on all of StarMade, they see traders as easy targets, which is why the only "trading" is with NPCs and stick shops.

That isnt something game mechanics can solve, thats just the players.

During that time where larimar (blue) asteroid spawning was bugged, I spent a considerable amount of gameplay time mining them in my piddly spaceship on my crappy computer, and sold the shield materials to both serverside and forumside factions. They bought my goods, with very little effort on my behalf. Mind you credits were worthless, so it had to be bartering, but I still traded with people.

I also remember there being a decent number of "merchant factions" on LCB during the short time that it was running as a PvP server (though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

There's no reason to trade currently with credits being inflated and resources being plentiful, so I wouldn't be surprised that you find a lot less trader players.

I'm not saying there are a vast number of them who've just left for now, or that they've all changed how they play for now. I highly doubt that either of us actually know the number of players who have shown interest in such a gamestyle. I'm also not suggesting that we'll suddenly see a massive influx of players who want to trade if you implement new resource mechanics. But to say that "nobody wants to trade" is blatantly false, and these sorts of changes could possibly (though arguably unlikely) open up more reasons to trade and that would alleviate some of the burden on the designer's behalf. Don't brush us off and say that we don't exist, we can help make PvP more relevant.

TL;DR trader players exist and could be a potential supplement to a larger overhaul, due to obvious things like increasing the supply of resources of more PvP-focused players/factions

 

[kulbolen]

Did you even read my post

no, i just typed some random words that happened to seem like a reply to you.

ftr i agree with some of your post (feedback, vis cues, more fun to fly) but that doesnt mean you know what youre talking about.

cruise control? we have that. weapon complexity? we have that. just because some of the weapon combos are outright useless doesnt mean theres not variety among weapons.

I think that make weapons more complex: accuracy, spread, recoil, impact force, gauge, salvos, charge ups, magazines, cooldowns, armor penetation based on gauge, firerate, range, AOE, overcharges, bulletspeed.

we have accuracy, spread, salvos, cooldowns, armor pen, firerate, range, aoe, and bulletspeed already. weapons are complex, you either refuse to acknowledge this, or dont understand this.

even if you just took cannon/cannon with no effect, theres a ton of ways to configure that gun to behave in a specific way custom to your ship. paper dps and real dps arent the same. i imagine you havent participated in much combat beyond fighting crappy npcs that you dont need to put any thought into fighting. the simple fact is, even among ships geared specifically towards power to mass for pvp, there are a lot of different weapon setups, even though most ships include some form of m/b, b/b, and c/c

Lag of complexity in combat

every single one of the best ships ive been in involve managing your energy usage, cooldowns, triggers, and utilities. every single one. if your ship doesnt use these, its probably not very good in a fight.


see, this games lack of challenging content unless players like to fight each other has created some kind of lack of awareness of what kind of potential there is in its combat system. yes, its rough, buggy, choppy, and generally sloppy as hell, but the complexity and variety are there. yes, they should fix lots of shit, update lots of shit, and add lots of shit, and make lots of shit prettier.

 

[madman Captain]

no, i just typed some random words that happened to seem like a reply to you.

ftr i agree with some of your post (feedback, vis cues, more fun to fly) but that doesnt mean you know what youre talking about.

cruise control? we have that. weapon complexity? we have that. just because some of the weapon combos are outright useless doesnt mean theres not variety among weapons.



we have accuracy, spread, salvos, cooldowns, armor pen, firerate, range, aoe, and bulletspeed already. weapons are complex, you either refuse to acknowledge this, or dont understand this.

even if you just took cannon/cannon with no effect, theres a ton of ways to configure that gun to behave in a specific way custom to your ship. paper dps and real dps arent the same. i imagine you havent participated in much combat beyond fighting crappy npcs that you dont need to put any thought into fighting. the simple fact is, even among ships geared specifically towards power to mass for pvp, there are a lot of different weapon setups, even though most ships include some form of m/b, b/b, and c/c



every single one of the best ships ive been in involve managing your energy usage, cooldowns, triggers, and utilities. every single one. if your ship doesnt use these, its probably not very good in a fight.


see, this games lack of challenging content unless players like to fight each other has created some kind of lack of awareness of what kind of potential there is in its combat system. yes, its rough, buggy, choppy, and generally sloppy as hell, but the complexity and variety are there. yes, they should fix lots of shit, update lots of shit, and add lots of shit, and make lots of shit prettier.

Befor you next time wrote a text wall with a informationcharge of an empty noticeblock simply answer my question

Where are the difference betwin the different Cannon layouts?


CAN
CAN+CAN
CAN+Missile
CAN+Beam
CAN+Pulse

Answer the question under the following aspects:
accuracy, spread, cooldowns, firerate, range, bulletspeed, DPS, energy usage per second, energy usarge per shot, bulletsize/impacthole.

​

Cruise contoll mean that the ship try to maintain forward thrust like I explained in the following posts. Can you show me something like this in this game?

And when I turn the ship 90 degrees to the right? Will it constanly drive forward? No, it drifts sidewards.
I mean that the ship always try to move forward and if I change the direcion of the ship it imidetly gives trust so that it moves stait forward and not drift sidewards plus that it trys to maintain the speed and course against external forces like wormholes or pull/push/stop effects.

No and yes. I want a flight model that most space games I know use, for exsample X2, X3, Fractured Space, Avorion, Void Destroyer 2, Starpoint Gemini 2, Dreadghought, Galactic Junk Leauge, Space Engineers, Empyreon Galacic Survival, Starwars Battlefront 2(the old one).

And? Planets also have gravity and the ships not fall to the ground.

But that bring me to an addional thing on my list with PvP problems

7. Map design: Without large obtracles, dangerzones, cover or oher things that make the battlefields itself interesting, the battle also lost a lot of its fun. possible solution for this would be the battle betwin larger fleets witch create interesting battlefields.​

To be honest the entire star wars franshise use an mostly atospheric flight model, and most franshises I know explain this fact with some kind of technology that emulate an atospheric flight model. Manuvering thrusters for exsample can do this.

PS. Next time when you to discuss with someone bring aguments, explain, give sources and most important: Answer Questions!

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Having certain resource-dense systems that disable homebase building in the same time is a great idea. That means no single faction can just sit there and claim it for free. They could be randomly generated during worldgen, with a set chance of a system being marked as this (but only showing on map after it was mapped by either the number of required sectors visited or a scan) that increases the further you get from the galaxy core, to encourage exploration.

Ratting requires a fix to the pirate wave spawns by the devs. In certain void systems neighboring a star system there could be a "High pirate activity" marker which means a higher chance of a station spawning being a pirate station instead of derelict or tradestation, and also a higher chance of random pirate encounters, all using higher tier pirate waves to spawn - essentially, pirate nests at the edge of civilized space. The chance of a system being marked like this at universe generation would increase the further it is from the galaxy core (to encourage exploration and factions spreading out) High pirate activity sectors could be neither claimed, nor could a faction homebase be established in them. Stations could be built there but without the first 2 options, nothing would warn about a player ambush and they would have to be heavily defended to withstand both the continued pirate harrassment and/or opportunist players.

 

[kulbolen]

Befor you next time wrote a text wall with a informationcharge of an empty noticeblock simply answer my question

ignoring the information and trying to force an arbitrary point (that ive already answered, reread previous post) is called stonewalling.

 

[Reilly Reese]

And? Planets also have gravity and the ships not fall to the ground.

And that's why it has an atmospheric model. >_> Because it's mostly IN-ATMOSPHERE.