A case study in factions- The solution to everything (ENDED)

[GDPR 302420]

is seems like a well thought out idea but as it stands, I cannot support it as it disproportionately favors PvPers who group up in large numbers at the expense of anyone who is unwilling or unable to group up.

You yourself said that you would never play on a PvP server because you prefer to turtle and PvE. Why are you so interested in playstles that you have no intent to ever participate in?

Also, this is incorrect, this system favors groups no more then current game mechanics do.

One-man factions are not "a problem" but rather a symptom of a much larger issue with StarMade multi-player. The real problem is and always has been that factions are broken. The rank system doesn't hold and one little screw up on your permisions will allow a dishonest player to bleed your resources dry, steal blueprints and ships and otherwise ruin your faction from within.

This sounds like a personal issue, it isnt difficult to set up rank based access to structures, you can use docked doors with set permission levels and faction permission blocks to lockdown any factioned entity or parts of it to certain ranks.

If you do not do this and your resources are bled dry from within, that is the fault of the faction leadership, not the fault of this mechanic.

1) Run the risk that your faction mates will steal, sabotage, be incompetent or otherwise, betray the faction.
While there is no shortage of well established multi-player factions, not everyone has trusted allies who can join their faction; therefor, not every experienced player is going to want to deal with having a bunch of un-proven rookies running around in their base doing who knows what. On the other hand, some players may not feel comfortable joining another unfamiliar faction; lest they get overly restricted or hung out to dry by their recruiters. Lastly, some people just want to call their own shots or simply operate better solo than with others around.

Risk can be eliminated by setting up actual permission based access. This isnt an issue with the proposed system, this is an issue of leadership ability.

2) Get pushed off the server (probably through force) for failing to come up with enough quality teammates to maintain home base invulnerability.
I would be wise to consider what may happen when too many quality players quit when they can't find any good faction mates or simply opt out of having to extensively vet new players so they don't get screwed. You may end up with one giant server-wide faction with no enemies to fight because everyone else either quit or is too weak to offer a challenge.

A motivation to group up or work hard, this isnt an issue with the system, this is an issue with the player.

A true solution; fix factions (specifically the rank/permissions system) so that people are more inclined to trust each other and cooperate. Once factions work as intended, we should focus on adding incentives for players to explore,expand and fight rather than punish them for failure or refusal to do so. You know the deal; Flies, honey, vinegar and all that jazz...

As I said above, the mechanics are already in place to allow for trust. You should make use of the tools that are already in place.

**** Edited by alterintel to be less inflammatory ****

 

[Dr. Whammy]

RedAlert_007

- Regarding my play style and the purpose behind my input: You don't know my intentions or how I play so let's skip the pleasantries and stick to the topic at hand.

- Regarding "accuracy" and who this suggestion favors: I'll let the OP explain it to you.

One man factions will no longer be a thing. A single player will not be able to sustain even one invulnerable homebase for long.

- Regarding risk, rank and permissions: Permission settings themselves aren't news to anyone but the newest of players. On the other hand, not everyone wants to deal with micromanaging permissions on literally everything they own. Docked doors are nothing new but they are a good way to add lag; especially in large numbers.

- Regarding "leadership" and "laziness": It's a simple concept. Some people work better alone. Some people prefer to work alone. Some people neither want nor need a leader, nor do they want nor need to be a leader.

If you don't like one-man factions or simply don't understand their appeal, that's cool but rather than try to convince Schine to make the game force everyone everywhere to cater to your preferred play style, maybe you should consider...
- Playing on servers that support your chosen play style; with rules against one-man factions.
- Asking Schine for a server config option to run on your own server, rather than something that affects all players, everywhere. or...
- Actually making your own server and setting your own rules against one-man factions.

Any part of this suggestion that makes it to the dev team should be limited to server configs only. Schine has repeatedly stated that they want there to be multiple ways to play this game. As such, you can play however you want on your own time, on your own server or on one that supports your play style. To insist that everyone else plays by your rules even on servers you don't play on is laughable and rather ...'pizza'-like.
Remember when you guys told me to stay away from PvP servers or go make my own? ...well, I did both.

This is me; playing the way I want but not imposing my preferred play style(s) on others. Learn how to do the same.

 

[FlyingDebris]

RedAlert_007

- Regarding my play style and the purpose behind my input: You don't know my intentions or how I play so let's skip the pleasantries and stick to the topic at hand.

- Regarding "accuracy" and who this suggestion favors: I'll let the OP explain it to you.



- Regarding risk, rank and permissions: Permission settings themselves aren't news to anyone but the newest of players. On the other hand, not everyone wants to deal with micromanaging permissions on literally everything they own. Docked doors are nothing new but they are a good way to add lag; especially in large numbers.

- Regarding "leadership" and "laziness": It's a simple concept. Some people work better alone. Some people prefer to work alone. Some people neither want nor need a leader, nor do they want nor need to be a leader.

If you don't like one-man factions or simply don't understand their appeal, that's cool but rather than try to convince Schine to make the game force everyone everywhere to cater to your preferred play style, maybe you should consider...
- Playing on servers that support your chosen play style; with rules against one-man factions.
- Asking Schine for a server config option to run on your own server, rather than something that affects all players, everywhere. or...
- Actually making your own server and setting your own rules against one-man factions.

Any part of this suggestion that makes it to the dev team should be limited to server configs only. Schine has repeatedly stated that they want there to be multiple ways to play this game. As such, you can play however you want on your own time, on your own server or on one that supports your play style. To insist that everyone else plays by your rules even on servers you don't play on is laughable and rather ...'pizza'-like.
Remember when you guys told me to stay away from PvP servers or go make my own? ...well, I did both.

This is me; playing the way I want but not imposing my preferred play style(s) on others. Learn how to do the same.

Actually, redalert has a lot of experience with servers like that, where factions have to be x size.
Matter of fact, what you're suggesting is actually forcing people to go solo; why bother with a faction when there are so many "safeguards" that you're effectively playing alone anyways?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Actually, redalert has a lot of experience with servers like that, where factions have to be x size.
Matter of fact, what you're suggesting is actually forcing people to go solo; why bother with a faction when there are so many "safeguards" that you're effectively playing alone anyways?

Then there should be no problem and this thread serves no purpose.

Regarding what I'm suggesting; you are wrong. What I am suggesting is that people take the time to address why people make one-man factions in the first place. Meanwhile, make this suggestion a server config option so people can opt in or out.

You have no need to impact players' own personal servers with your preferences. If (for example) can refrain from interfering with your game, you can afford me (and other server owners) the same courtesy.

 

[kulbolen]

If you don't like one-man factions or simply don't understand their appeal, that's cool but rather than try to convince Schine to make the game force everyone everywhere to cater to your preferred play style, maybe you should consider...
- Playing on servers that support your chosen play style; with rules against one-man factions.
- Asking Schine for a server config option to run on your own server, rather than something that affects all players, everywhere. or...
- Actually making your own server and setting your own rules against one-man factions.

Meanwhile, make this suggestion a server config option so people can opt in or out.

good argument. problem i see is that the current fp implementation is placeholder trash that doesnt really work, even with its "config options." lots of more engaging systems have been suggested to replace it, and while they definitely might be disruptive to the one man faction playstyle... most of them state pretty clearly that theyre config optionable to either turn off or set to act like the current one does. see below.

VV

Creative servers and people who want to chill out a bit can set their FP depletion values to 0. That will make it work pretty much like the current system.

the only real question i have with something like this is whether or not you intend it to be the default config. i play solo for a reason, and servers that force grouping die for a reason. in the end, i still think its a good idea if the game becomes healthy, and to play around with in the meantime.

Then there should be no problem and this thread serves no purpose.

what a leap

 

[Captain Fortius]

The ease of owning an invulnerable station means there is widespread creation of one-man factions. This is a problem

WHY is that a problem?
Some people play in groups, some play alone, yet all of them need a safe place to keep their ships and loot at. "AKA docking for the night"
Taking that away is the same as if WoW left your character in the game world after you log out, letting other players kill it and take his loot and gear.
As the game allows the existance of massive factions, so should it allow for the occasional maverick to thrive in his own way and not be forced to group up with players if he doesn't want to.

I'd be all for a non-invulnerable death fortress that has to rely on guns, shields, armor, repair crews, and devious traps to defend itself, but time and again we are shown that:
A- There's always a bigger doomstick that can blast it all to hell without effort.
B- There's always a new exploit / quirky unintended gameplay element that lets you circumvent whatever protection the other guy builds.

You'd have to change the game on much deeper levels and introduce heavy anti-cheat measures (that much bigger companies fail to do sufficiently at times) if you want to take away or limit the one safety net this game offers.

BUT, faction points deplete at a rate proportional to the time a player(s) (of the faction) is online. (Online time is already measure by the server) Yes, you read that correctly. Herin lies the beauty of the suggestion! Nothing happens if a player is not online - you can go for a vacation and not worry about your homebase getting invulnerable beacause of that.

Faction Points are gained every time a player attacks enemy factions, attacks pirates or does a decent amount of mining. (Values will have to balanced here, see heading "Implementation")

In this scenario it's possible to blockade someone's station, and just wait there until they run out of FP because they cannot leave the place alive - or they are forced to log out and stay like that.

The way I see it, a bunch of invulnerable faction bases are a "problem" for the trolls who zigzag around the galaxy looking for helpless victims, and get frustrated when they cannot break EVERYTHING they find. It's also a problem for the self-centered brat who cannot understand the other player "turtling" at the enemy base might have chosen to spend his free time building things instead of chasing each other in circles.
Or, for the guy who warps to a new players base with a giant meta brick and fails to comprehend why his would-be-victim refuses to undock and "fight" him with his half-finished, mostly empty spaceship hull.

So right after you've changed and fixed the game, you can get around to changing and fixing it's players, and THEN we can get back to ideas about changing faction base invulnerability.

 

[GDPR 302420]

If you don't like one-man factions or simply don't understand their appeal, that's cool but rather than try to convince Schine to make the game force everyone everywhere to cater to your preferred play style, maybe you should consider...
- Playing on servers that support your chosen play style; with rules against one-man factions.
- Asking Schine for a server config option to run on your own server, rather than something that affects all players, everywhere. or...
- Actually making your own server and setting your own rules against one-man factions.

One man factions are unrealistic and the factionspam of one man factions creates database bloats and unnesscary, this has nothing to do with preffered playstyle, it has everything to do with "Oh a single person can somehow run an entire empire, economy, fleet, etc etc"

I strongly believe in solo content, however one man factions are not the way to do it.

Personal preferences are irelevent, do you see earth littered with small empires with soverign territory controlled by a single human everywhere? I didnt think so.

EVE Online has the right idea, larger groups can creates corperations, alliances and such, while Solo players have plenty of content avaliable to them without the need join a corp or create their own.

Any part of this suggestion that makes it to the dev team should be limited to server configs only.

Well duh, this is a given.

To insist that everyone else plays by your rules even on servers you don't play on is laughable and rather ...'pizza'-like.

See above, nice try with your attempts at projection but unlike yourself I do not support enforcing rules against all PvP servers because "Muh PvE"

WHY is that a problem?
Some people play in groups, some play alone, yet all of them need a safe place to keep their ships and loot at. "AKA docking for the night"
Taking that away is the same as if WoW left your character in the game world after you log out, letting other players kill it and take his loot and gear.
As the game allows the existance of massive factions, so should it allow for the occasional maverick to thrive in his own way and not be forced to group up with players if he doesn't want to.

I'd be all for a non-invulnerable death fortress that has to rely on guns, shields, armor, repair crews, and devious traps to defend itself, but time and again we are shown that:
A- There's always a bigger doomstick that can blast it all to hell without effort.
B- There's always a new exploit / quirky unintended gameplay element that lets you circumvent whatever protection the other guy builds.

You'd have to change the game on much deeper levels and introduce heavy anti-cheat measures (that much bigger companies fail to do sufficiently at times) if you want to take away or limit the one safety net this game offers.





In this scenario it's possible to blockade someone's station, and just wait there until they run out of FP because they cannot leave the place alive - or they are forced to log out and stay like that.

The way I see it, a bunch of invulnerable faction bases are a "problem" for the trolls who zigzag around the galaxy looking for helpless victims, and get frustrated when they cannot break EVERYTHING they find. It's also a problem for the self-centered brat who cannot understand the other player "turtling" at the enemy base might have chosen to spend his free time building things instead of chasing each other in circles.
Or, for the guy who warps to a new players base with a giant meta brick and fails to comprehend why his would-be-victim refuses to undock and "fight" him with his half-finished, mostly empty spaceship hull.

So right after you've changed and fixed the game, you can get around to changing and fixing it's players, and THEN we can get back to ideas about changing faction base invulnerability.

As response to your entire post can be summarised with this.

Tutrling kills player interaction and is a driving factor that is killing the games multiplayer scene.

You should be able to play solo, but do you see a shittone of tiny empires on earth ran by one man littered all over the place? You don't.

 

[GnomeKing]

A : trolls who zigzag around the galaxy looking for helpless victims, and get frustrated when they cannot break EVERYTHING they find.
B: ..... might have chosen to spend his free time building things instead of chasing each other in circles.
Or, for the guy who warps to a new players base with a giant meta brick and fails to comprehend why his would-be-victim refuses to undock and "fight" him with his half-finished, mostly empty spaceship hull.

[edited a bit]. . .yeah, nothing problematic about that :/

 

[kulbolen]

wouldnt it be cool if there were a reason to make ships look cool, and the combat performance of a ship went UP when it used some blocks we now consider decorative? that way, itd erase a lot of the perceptive fear of ugly ships being dangerous, or pretty ships being weak.

thered still be ugly meta bricks, because people are lazy, and people wwould still refuse to fight them, but then thered be no scapegoat excuse.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

good argument. problem i see is that the current fp implementation is placeholder trash that doesnt really work, even with its "config options." lots of more engaging systems have been suggested to replace it, and while they definitely might be disruptive to the one man faction playstyle... most of them state pretty clearly that theyre config optionable to either turn off or set to act like the current one does. see below.

If it is in fact posed as a config setting, you'll have no further opposition from me. I'm just making sure that these changes don't become non-configurable defaults.

One man factions are unrealistic and the factionspam of one man factions creates database bloats and unnesscary, this has nothing to do with preffered playstyle, it has everything to do with "Oh a single person can somehow run an entire empire, economy, fleet, etc etc"

I strongly believe in solo content, however one man factions are not the way to do it.

Personal preferences are irelevent, do you see earth littered with small empires with soverign territory controlled by a single human everywhere? I didnt think so.

EVE Online has the right idea, larger groups can creates corperations, alliances and such, while Solo players have plenty of content avaliable to them without the need join a corp or create their own.

See above, nice try with your attempts at projection but unlike yourself I do not support enforcing rules against all PvP servers because "Muh PvE"

Regarding database bloats; entity count and claimed sectors are the primary cause of this and are directly linked to preferred play styles and Schine's programming. As it stands now; want a smaller database?
- Don't spam turrets, drones, stations and docked doors, etc.
- Don't spam swarmers to cause other people to spam AMS turrets.
- Don't be hell bent on exploring, claiming or leaving the whole starting galaxy.
- Don't let your NPC factions get out of hand.

Regarding Solo content: You mean PvE? I thought this was a discussion about game play on multi-player PvP servers.

Regarding turtling killing player interaction: Are you saying that the only way for players to interact is to shoot at them? I'll be sure to mention that to all the players who have come to hang out at my cities for trade, repairs, tourism, sharing design techniques, working on collaborative builds, sparring, team-based pirate hunting, rescuing stranded newbies etc, while I was still into multi-player.

Regarding "realism" and sovereign territory: Actually, modern earth is based on sovereign territory; It's in our DNA to seek it. There are currently 195 countries on earth; most of which are run by a president, prime minister, chancellor, etc. The United states as a collection of 50 recognized states and multiple self governing territories. On the smaller scale, it's called home ownership, real estate and entrepreneurship. We have the ability to claim territory and do (damn near) anything we want within the boundaries of that territory. You are free to debate this fact on a different medium at your leisure.

Regarding Eve Online: Apples to oranges... In Eve Online, a solo player always has a place to dock his ship and store his supplies when he logs off. This ability exists in both 'high sec' and 'low sec' space; in virtually every system. It's not until you become a corporation operating in 'null sec' space that your bases and belongings become vulnerable offline. StarMade space has no security rating and the player must make a safe place to dock/store his stuff.

Regarding "projection": You really have no clue, do you?

 

[GDPR 302420]

Regarding Solo content: You mean PvE? I thought this was a discussion about game play on multi-player PvP servers.

No I don't mean PvE.

Regarding turtling killing player interaction: Are you saying that the only way for players to interact is to shoot at them? I'll be sure to mention that to all the players who have come to hang out at my cities for trade, repairs, tourism, sharing design techniques, working on collaborative builds, sparring, team-based pirate hunting, rescuing stranded newbies etc, while I was still into multi-player.

No I am not saying the only interaction that exists in this game is shooting others, nice try with the strawman

I am saying that currently homebases kill player interaction and not just because you cannot shoot people in them, you are more then welcome to do a quick search for the numerous other complaints about homebases.

Regarding "realism" and sovereign territory: Actually, modern earth is based on sovereign territory; It's in our DNA to seek it. There are currently 195 countries on earth; most of which are run by a president, prime minister, chancellor, etc. The United states as a collection of 50 recognized states and multiple self governing territories. On the smaller scale, it's called home ownership, real estate and entrepreneurship. We have the ability to claim territory and do (damn near) anything we want within the boundaries of that territory. You are free to debate this fact on a different medium at your leisure.

You completely avoided missed the point, home ownership and united nations crap has nothing to do with anything I talked about.

Regarding Eve Online: Apples to oranges... In Eve Online, a solo player always has a place to dock his ship and store his supplies when he logs off. This ability exists in both 'high sec' and 'low sec' space; in virtually every system. It's not until you become a corporation operating in 'null sec' space that your bases and belongings become vulnerable offline. StarMade space has no security rating and the player must make a safe place to dock/store his stuff.

Are you saying that similar mechanics could not be applied to StarMade? EVE Online is it is own game sure but a lot of the mechanics it uses can be applied to StarMade to fix a lot of problems.

Regarding "projection": You really have no clue, do you?

I cleary have more of a clue then you, considering you talked about it being "impossible" to trust others because they can steal your ship overnight yet mechanics that have been in the game since the begining of factions are avaliable to help solve this issue. Like I said before, if you are not making use of them then you only have yourself to blame, not the system.

 

[Lecic]

I fail to see how this proposed system does anything to encourage faction expansion when all that does is give other factions targets to gain FP from you by nuking your pointless stations, for no benefit to yourself. The "future of warfare" I see is just people turtling, mining, and farming pirates, and doing the occasional clean up of random 1 block stations scattered throughout their space and replacing their own 1 block claim stations that may have been destroyed.

If you want factions to grow and fight you need to make territory and infrastructure mean something. Long term mining/factory stations, a warp gate and shop network to encourage interstellar traders and tourists, etc. Territory that actually matters because overall resource outputs are much lower and specific sections of the galaxy are more dense in certain resources than others, forcing trading or conquering of resource dense zones and nodes where multiple resource zones connect together in order to fuel a trading empire or a growing war machine.

I'm not even sure faction points are truly necessary for the game.

Regarding Eve Online: Apples to oranges... In Eve Online, a solo player always has a place to dock his ship and store his supplies when he logs off. This ability exists in both 'high sec' and 'low sec' space; in virtually every system. It's not until you become a corporation operating in 'null sec' space that your bases and belongings become vulnerable offline. StarMade space has no security rating and the player must make a safe place to dock/store his stuff.

So, you mean like how advanced shops currently are, and, in the future, the revamped Trade Guild spawn station and shops, which will function as friendly ports for non-pirate players, even including free factories and shipyards for them to use?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

No I am not saying the only interaction that exists in this game is shooting others, nice try with the strawman

I am saying that currently homebases kill player interaction and not just because you cannot shoot people in them, you are more then welcome to do a quick search for the numerous other complaints about homebases.

So far, the only complaints I've seen about home bases had nothing to do with interaction beyond combat. In any case, it's not up to other players to entertain you. You want to interact with other players? Actually be enjoyable for them to be around. They'll either message you, visit you, invite you to their base or ally with you and fight common enemies; as were my experiences online. ...or you can just stick to shooting at them; prompting them all to run to the very edge of the galaxy, avoid contact with other players, arm up and turtle. Now, which will it be?

You completely avoided missed the point, home ownership and united nations crap has nothing to do with anything I talked about.

Actually it's more related to this topic than you realize. But like I said; that's a debate for another medium. Also, it would be wise to learn the difference between the United Nations (an international alliance) and the United States (a single nation or in other words; a "sovereign territory") before you speak on either.

Are you saying that similar mechanics could not be applied to StarMade? EVE Online is it is own game sure but a lot of the mechanics it uses can be applied to StarMade to fix a lot of problems.

The better questions are "Should they apply them?" and "Why should they apply them?" It's interesting how you use Eve Online as your example then use "it's a different game" as your excuse when I call you out on it. If you want to play Eve Online, then go play it. On the other hand, if you want Eve-StarMade, ask Schine for a config and do it on your own server or join one that supports your play style.

I cleary have more of a clue then you, considering you talked about it being "impossible" to trust others because they can steal your ship overnight yet mechanics that have been in the game since the begining of factions are avaliable to help solve this issue. Like I said before, if you are not making use of them then you only have yourself to blame, not the system.

Actually you don't have a clue. Like I said; it's not about the available tools or the knowledge needed to use them. Some people simply don't care to play StarMade the same way you do. When you can understand and accept that one simple concept, maybe you and I can make some progress. Until that time comes, there are plenty of servers you can join that ban one-man factions. If that's not enough for you, go ask for a server config.
[doublepost=1511239069,1511238025][/doublepost]

So, you mean like how advanced shops currently are, and, in the future, the revamped Trade Guild spawn station and shops, which will function as friendly ports for non-pirate players, even including free factories and shipyards for them to use?

Normally I would agree with your point but all those stations do is add to the server's entity count (lag) and encourage non-factioned players to occupy all the docks near the starting sectors. If the shops are vulnerable, then any docked ships can be stolen or destroyed while you sleep.

If the shops are invulnerable, then you'll have a mass exodus of new players hauling it from the starting sector toward the edge of the galaxy, coupled with the following exploits.

1) Docking (possibly invulnerable) weapons to the shops
2) Building a massive ship/base around the station (I do it all the time with my stations)
3) A denial of service for all station docks, shipyards, factories and medical facilities as a result of the above mentioned building
4) Using these locked, weaponized (possibly invulnerable) stations to blockade entire systems

Did Schine ever release any notes on how they intend to deal with these eventualities?

 

[GDPR 302420]

Actually you don't have a clue. Like I said; it's not about the available tools or the knowledge needed to use them. Some people simply don't care to play StarMade the same way you do.

I do have a clue, I have way more of a clue about basic game mechanics then you do as demonstrated by your posts over previous forums.

So far, the only complaints I've seen about home bases had nothing to do with interaction beyond combat. In any case, it's not up to other players to entertain you. You want to interact with other players? Actually be enjoyable for them to be around. They'll either message you, visit you, invite you to their base or ally with you and fight common enemies; as were my experiences online. ...or you can just stick to shooting at them; prompting them all to run to the very edge of the galaxy, avoid contact with other players, arm up and turtle. Now, which will it be?

If they are the only complaints you have found, then you didnt look hard enough.

As for "Other players are not here to etertain you" congradulations on once again avoiding missing the entire point.

Actually it's more related to this topic than you realize. But like I said; that's a debate for another medium. Also, it would be wise to learn the difference between the United Nations (an international alliance) and the United States (a single nation or in other words; a "sovereign territory") before you speak on either.

No, it is completely irelevent to the topic of one man factions.

A nation or alliance is compromised of millions, allowing said country to function, have an economy, maintain infastructure and participate in diplomacy. This cannot be done with a single human being and you certantly do not see single human beings running nations the size of the US or even small islands like Hawaii.

Quote a legally recognised sovereign state where the entire countries permanent population and all infastructure that comes with a nation (military, econony, diplomacy, public services, healthcare etc etc) consist of and run by solely one man or women.

I will wait.

The better questions are "Should they apply them?" and "Why should they apply them?" It's interesting how you use Eve Online as your example then use "it's a different game" as your excuse when I call you out on it.

There are several reasons as to why EVE Online mechanics could intergrate well into all forms of StarMade gameplay, I gave several already in previous threads, if you want reasons go do a quick search.

If you want to play Eve Online, then go play it. On the other hand, if you want Eve-StarMade, ask Schine for a config and do it on your own server or join one that supports your play style.

I am not interested in forcing my playstyle on others, I am interested in the option and mechanics to faciliate my platyle being present and able to be utilised via server.cfg

The fact that you have implied I want to force my playstlye onto others when this isnt the case makes your entire point moot.

I encourage you to google the definition of strawman, if you are wrong then admit to it. But your debate tactics of putting words into my mouth and attacking points I never made is a dishonest debate tactic.

Actually you don't have a clue. Like I said; it's not about the available tools or the knowledge needed to use them.

You are clueless one in the room whammy, if I didnt have a clue then I would not have this fancy blue name here.

As matter of fact, it is everything to do with the tools and settings avaliable, if you have tools that can prevent X problem and refuse to use them and X problem happens, you only have yourself to blame, not the tools or the game.

Some people simply don't care to play StarMade the same way you do. When you can understand and accept that one simple concept, maybe you and I can make some progress. Until that time comes, there are plenty of servers you can join that ban one-man factions. If that's not enough for you, go ask for a server config.

Psychological projection - RationalWiki

I do understand that my playstyle is not the sole way to play, I have never asked Schine to change basic mechanics, all my suggestions and input are limited to configurable settings.

My entire argument was in favor of server config shit to allow for more PvP, the fact that your entire argument is based on otherwise makes your entire point moot.

On another note, you never responded to this inquiry.

If you have no intent to participate in PvP mechanics (like you have declared so many times before) then why are you so interested in activly campaigning against any and all changes to PvP proposed by players who have a clue? Kinda raises a few eyebrows, if you are not interested in PvP then why do you care? Perhaps there is some kind of personal spite you want to tell us about?

 

[Lecic]

Normally I would agree with your point but all those stations do is add to the server's entity count (lag)

OH MY GOD, NO, NOT SHOP ENTITIES!

The shop entities already exist. There are no extra entities being added by allowing the use of these shops and stations as safe harbors for new and factionless players. What point were you even trying to make here? A half dozen safe shops per system in TG space is suddenly an unbearable load on the server's entity count? Nevermind the fact that entity count means almost nothing when those entities aren't being actively loaded.

and encourage non-factioned players to occupy all the docks near the starting sectors.

Hold up. So first, your argument is that we can't have a system like EvE's because we don't have a safe territory where players can dock their stuff overnight without fear. And when it's pointed out to you that this already exists and plans to expand it have been talked about, it's suddenly a BAD THING that players are going to use this feature?

If there really are players abusing it and taking too many docks, however, you could always have something like a maximum number of ships 1 person can have docked to TG shops before they, say, start charging a rent on you or even won't let you dock, and by increasing the number of docks per shop or station, considering how they currently only have 4.

1) Docking (possibly invulnerable) weapons to the shops

Docking to shops already disables your weapons.

2) Building a massive ship/base around the station (I do it all the time with my stations)

Make it so shops count as stations, so you can't spawn a new station in the same sector as a TG shop.

3) A denial of service for all station docks, shipyards, factories and medical facilities as a result of the above mentioned building

Perhaps some sort of box-dim limiter on what can dock to TG stations and shops to prevent people from making designs that wrap around an entire shop and prevent access.

4) Using these locked, weaponized (possibly invulnerable) stations to blockade entire systems

Ignoring the fact that you don't even know shops already disable your weapons, how would you possibly blockade an entire system using a stationary shop in TG space, when the maximum range any weapon has is 4.5 sectors?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

OH MY GOD, NO, NOT SHOP ENTITIES!

The shop entities already exist. There are no extra entities being added by allowing the use of these shops and stations as safe harbors for new and factionless players. What point were you even trying to make here? A half dozen safe shops per system in TG space is suddenly an unbearable load on the server's entity count? Nevermind the fact that entity count means almost nothing when those entities aren't being actively loaded.

Shop entities. Not the shops themselves; the entities that people will dock to the shops; all of which will definitely be loaded when their owners are online.

Hold up. So first, your argument is that we can't have a system like EvE's because we don't have a safe territory where players can dock their stuff overnight without fear. And when it's pointed out to you that this already exists and plans to expand it have been talked about, it's suddenly a BAD THING that players are going to use this feature?

The docks aren't the problem. The possible flaw in the plan is making shops and all docked entities invulnerable. Instead of the one invincible home base people are complaining about, they'll have as many as there are shops.

If there really are players abusing it and taking too many docks, however, you could always have something like a maximum number of ships 1 person can have docked to TG shops before they, say, start charging a rent on you or even won't let you dock, and by increasing the number of docks per shop or station, considering how they currently only have 4.

It only takes one docked entity to build around an entire station; I do it all the time for mobility purposes with my MCS but the same technique can be used as a denial of service tactic. When a station is surrounded like this, the only thing accessible is the shop so a shop dock limit won't matter.

Docking to shops already disables your weapons.

That would come in handy to help prevent the TG from getting upset and prevent passive blockading, but surrounding a shop is still a possibility.

Make it so shops count as stations, so you can't spawn a new station in the same sector as a TG shop.

Functionally, they already are stations; just designated as shops via Schine's programming. The trick is to dock/build a ship around it. What the ship looks like is unimportant as long as it creates a successful denial of service.

Perhaps some sort of box-dim limiter on what can dock to TG stations and shops to prevent people from making designs that wrap around an entire shop and prevent access.

So we're back to these again? It may work but expect to hear a lot of complaining afterward.

Ignoring the fact that you don't even know shops already disable your weapons, how would you possibly blockade an entire system using a stationary shop in TG space, when the maximum range any weapon has is 4.5 sectors?

If they do in fact, disable weapons, you may be limited to just denial of service tactics. On the other hand, there are other tactics that can be used to bypass the shop's weapons lockout while maintaining (near) invulnerability. All it would take is sufficient planning and 4 seconds.
[doublepost=1511312529,1511312438][/doublepost]RedAlert_007

So... You've wasted everyone's time including your own to start a pointless argument over submitting this suggestion as a server config; something I mentioned several times before you felt the need to comment and a half a dozen more times after. ...and you've waited until now to reveal that you agree with it.

Like I've said in the past; some people are needlessly antagonistic and desperate for validation at all costs. ...as demonstrated by how you think a title given to you by a video game internet forum somehow makes you "important".

I don't know what made you this way but since you brought up the term "psychological projection", perhaps it's time you go see someone about it and sort some things out.

I'm out dude. I may continue this discussion with the others but I'm not interested in any more of this silliness.

 

[JinM]

Personally I would make the gain of faction points accordingly to actions on the server, be it pvp or trading with other players (not npcs) or by doing quests, or by simply being online.

Then I would make safe sectors where players can build their own stations. Maybe in some cases even in a centralised place?

Option 1:
To encourage pvp I would have generic stations that players can "buy". These relay points can be contested, but are invulnerable if the contestants didnt announce the battle, so booth parties can make an appointment. The smaller the defending faction, the smaller the maximum mass / strength limit of enemies.

The more stations you own, the bigger your central station can grow (mass limit).

Option two: Just have a battle between like 4 main sides. Each side has their own territory. The battles are purely competetive, in an artificial sector. Maybe even gain and loose sectors.

Option three (my favorite):
4 main sides. Each side has multiple factions in it. People who are online can type in, that they want to fight. Optionally they can select the minimum battle size, like 3v3 or 100k mass or maximum 1mill e/s. If there are enough people online on each side, the server automates an generic quest event and calls the people to a battle.
The type of battle is quest like and totally arbitrary. Defend a station vs 3 fighters. Win the fight in a sector 3v3. Board an enemy flagship with a breaching crew...
If people win, they get some loot, and maybe another time-limitted invulnerable station in some special sector, like the outer rim, or a centralised place for only the wealthiest.


In my opinion classical battling for stations that are built by players themself is not motivating. Who builds a nice station, when he knows that it will be destroyed? If everyone just spawns in generic stuff, you don't need to make players spawn in stations at all. I mean the point of Starmade is, that players want to build their own stuff. But they don't want to use completely self built stations to actually fend of enemies.

 

[GDPR 302420]

So... You've wasted everyone's time including your own to start a pointless argument over submitting this suggestion as a server config; something I mentioned several times before you felt the need to comment and a half a dozen more times after. ...and you've waited until now to reveal that you agree with it.

Telling you about how your entire argument from start to finish is invalid because you have made assumptions about my argument based on no credible evidence isnt wasting my time, I personaly found your desire to continue to engage comical.

I only wanted config changes from the very begining of my argument, you simply made the assumption and started a debate that you lost when I pointed out that your entire argument is invalid because it is based of the pretence that I am wanting mechanics grounded in the game as opposed to configurable config.

I didnt wait until now, you simply took this long to understand.

The only person who has had their time wasted was you, you could have simply not jumped to the assumption that I was wishing for mechanics to be forced onto players, but no :D

Like I've said in the past; some people are needlessly antagonistic and desperate for validation at all costs

I don't care about this "validation" you seem to imply I seek, if I did then I probably would be responding to people being idiots with sugarcoated hugbox shit rather then just calling them idiots for acting like idiots.

as demonstrated by how you think a title given to you by a video game internet forum somehow makes you "important".

I never claimed the title provided me with "importence" the only thing I said was that the fact that I was nominated as a mentor for my knoweldge of game mechanics means that to somehow to takes the blue name as a symbol of knoweldge, my word may be considered to be more trustworthy then your own.

Most consider the blue name meaningless, such as yourself, but some do which is why I pointed it out.

I don't know what made you this way but since you brought up the term "psychological projection", perhaps it's time you go see someone about it and sort some things out.

Thank you for futher confirming that your argument consisted of a lot of projection from you directed at me, you almost make it too easy.

I'm out dude. I may continue this discussion with the others but I'm not interested in any more of this silliness.

You said something much along those lines previously and claimed you "blocked me" yet here you are again.

You will be back

To encourage pvp I would have generic stations that players can "buy". These relay points can be contested, but are invulnerable if the contestants didnt announce the battle, so booth parties can make an appointment. The smaller the defending faction, the smaller the maximum mass / strength limit of enemies.

In order for this to work, you require motivations to expand in the first place.

However, rather then costestng random stations, why not allow players to deploy their own?

Perhaps contesting of these territories could be done with timer mechanics similar to the ones I proposed awhile back.

Buying contestable stations seems like a lazy, band-aid solution to a much bigger problem.

Option two: Just have a battle between like 4 main sides. Each side has their own territory. The battles are purely competetive, in an artificial sector. Maybe even gain and loose sectors.

Option three (my favorite):
4 main sides. Each side has multiple factions in it. People who are online can type in, that they want to fight. Optionally they can select the minimum battle size, like 3v3 or 100k mass or maximum 1mill e/s. If there are enough people online on each side, the server automates an generic quest event and calls the people to a battle.
The type of battle is quest like and totally arbitrary. Defend a station vs 3 fighters. Win the fight in a sector 3v3. Board an enemy flagship with a breaching crew...
If people win, they get some loot, and maybe another time-limitted invulnerable station in some special sector, like the outer rim, or a centralised place for only the wealthiest.

Giving players another way to PvP won't solve this problem, we need to address why PvP is stagnant in the first place, turtling is one of the biggest issues that needs to be a addressed, the other is lack of reaons to expand and the fact that the current game mechanics punish you for expanding.

 

[Lecic]

Shop entities. Not the shops themselves; the entities that people will dock to the shops; all of which will definitely be loaded when their owners are online.

Oh no, the entities that already exist, just stored in deep space or on one man faction homebases, now moved to a shop! Truly a disaster for the stability of servers! Hardly an issue, especially with a soft limit in the form of exponential parking fees for more ships past the limit, or a even hard limit on ship count.

The docks aren't the problem. The possible flaw in the plan is making shops and all docked entities invulnerable. Instead of the one invincible home base people are complaining about, they'll have as many as there are shops.

Invincible shops would be TG space only, although perhaps Pirates/Scavengers and other NPC factions could have something similar without the advanced protections offered by TG ones (more on that in my final paragraph). Since it's just in NPC space it's hardly an issue. The main problem with solo factions is that they can take valuable territory and there is no way to dislodge them. Solo players should have a safe harbor to dock to at night however, and shops fill that. This is why the invincible homebase complaint does not apply to invincible shops.

Your complaint was that Starmade does not have the mechanics to allow for something like EvE, where solo players do not need their own solo faction, because we don't have safe stations for them to dock to when they're offline. When I explained that we already sort of do and that it will probably be expanded in the future, you immediately changed topics to this now being a bad thing for us to have these mechanics. Why the sudden change of face?

If they do in fact, disable weapons, you may be limited to just denial of service tactics. On the other hand, there are other tactics that can be used to bypass the shop's weapons lockout while maintaining (near) invulnerability. All it would take is sufficient planning and 4 seconds.

Make TG space work like the Hi/Low Sec spaces of EvE. Try and attack a non-pirate target in TG space? TG police cruisers will be on the spot in a few seconds ready to kick the shit out of you, with inhibs to keep you from running, if you don't get out fast enough. Try and attack a non-pirate target at a SHOP? Wow, now you've really fucked up. Shop instantly locks you out of redocking, hits you with a high power inhib, and TG enforcers are on the scene in a second. Don't care about losing a newbie griefing frigate when you can afford hundreds of them? Maybe you'll care when the TG gives your faction a trade embargo and you're no longer allowed to use their gates or send ships or freighters through their space?

 

[Lynx_]

I played on the fuyb and sun-world server for quite some time now. There are a lot of one man factions and factions in general, this has a multitude of reasons:

-People don't trust newbies (stealing goods)
-People don't want newbie ship at their base or their fancy logic destroyed
-People don't comunicate at all
-People want everyone in their faction to have teamspeak/voice coms

Most of these get less present the longer someone is playing. I know some guys who just want to be on their own but generally speaking all teamspeak people are only hold of uniting their factions because they have to give up their homebase. About 5 big factions form the "united systems alliance" which is like a faction but split so they can all keep their homebase.

I think that early game you can't change much, there are just reasons to stay alone and punishing one mans hurts people who ike a lonley playstyle.

Some changes Lategame could improve this however: Let everyone have one fixed homebase which is always safe/very hard to make vulnerable. Then let each faction have forward bases that are invulerable but only at a certain faction point level. Faction points are earned by owning teritory, for which you have to use more, vulerable bases. This way the power of a faction is determined by their teritory, which seems natural to me.
Paired with an option to move bases (costing a lot of resources) and merging factions this would alow everyone to start on its own, and when he stays active become member of a bigger group.