Disabling Systems after HP % is Pointless, PART TWO!

[PartyAlarm]

Vehemently disagreeing is a far thing from flinging personal insults. I see nothing wrong with folks arguing as long as they don't start flinging mud at each other.

I think we can assume pretty easily that the features they added for boarding were a pretty quick job. I have no reason to believe otherwise - I don't see any drastically new mechanics added.

I could probably get some entertainment out of it. If I was salvaging pirates for $$$, it'd let me save some extra resources and capture the ship more intact. Might have some other fun gameplay in the form of ninja'ing ships that people left unguarded or undocked. Seems like you could even wait in someone's ship for them to take off mining or whatever, force them out of the core, and kill them. It's a bone for the RP crowd too. Not my personal thing, but I could see a segment of the playerbase getting some entertainment out of it. Doesn't seem like a big deal.



I agree with you, Mered4, that just because a feature is realistic does not necessarily mean it is fun, or has to be a part of the game.


It does seem like degrading system performance has a useful purpose, although it might need retuning. Larger ships need a smaller % of their blocks destroyed to overheat, due to the structure damage multiplier. Without system degradation, a large enough ship could retain the majority of their systems right up to the moment of destruction. A big hit on a small ship could completely cripple it, where an equivalent hit (in structure damage) leaves the systems of a large ship intact. We already have discussions on gigantism on the forums constantly. It seems reasonable to have a system to try and keep large ships from having too much of an advantage with the new system.


I dunno man, is your main point that the system is redundant because if you've lost that much of your ship, you're dead anyway? I look at that more as an opportunity to get more resources out of a kill. If resources are not an issue, then it's pointless, but there are enough servers out there that make resources hard to accumulate that it could be worth it for some players.

e: Oh, and I see you already addressed the whole extra resources thing - but I have to disagree - disassembling a ship via build mode is really fast. Whether or not you're going to use a salvage array or disassemble it manually is going to depend greatly on how well established you are on the server, the size of the ship in question, and what the server settings are with regard to resources.

 

[Winterhome]

I can get behind a rebalancing, which is the entire purpose of community feedback during alpha. We're not just players, we're testers, simply by nature of the stage of development.

A total removal of features that were added, however, is totally unnecessary, and just because a coder does work on one thing for an hour or two doesn't mean he's forgotten about the rest of what he has to do.

 

[toasts]

So you've completely degraded the work done in the most recent update, but you have yet to throw a better idea on to the table to further balance the game. I think feedback and opinions are very important to games that are in alpha, but until someone comes up with a better idea, I see no reason to go back. So instead of complaining on how it is pointless, why not try to think of something better to replace it?

~Toast

 

[PartyAlarm]

There may certainly be times that a feature adds nothing to the game, and needs no replacement - it just needs to be ditched. Ideas can't all be winners! Also not liking a mechanic doesn't necessarily mean one has to propose something better either.

I'm of the opinion that degrading system performance can add something to gameplay though.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

When he has factual evidence to present, I'll listen. Until then, I hope he stays on topic with the HP system, because anything else is getting ignored.

That's all you need. You don't seem to want to listen to any evidence presented. This is how the actually numbers play out of % blocks vs % debuff. Sure it will apply different to every ship in every battle but the system allows for a gradual slope to "dead ship" instead of 55%, 54%, 53%, 52%, 51%, 0%

You are arguing pure opinion, and that is pointless. It is your opinion that the system is useless and unless your willing to change that opinion this isn't an actual debate as you will continue to bury your head in the sand singing lalalalala and never actually listen to any evidence. Plenty of other people have also stated their opinions such as it being more immersive and you've just shot them down. This really feels like nothing more than flame bait, one thread was already locked. This one should not exists.

Also I love arguments and debates as well. The most fun I've had debating is when somebody actually changes my mind on an issue.

 

[toasts]

There may certainly be times that a feature adds nothing to the game, and needs no replacement - it just needs to be ditched. Ideas can't all be winners! Also not liking a mechanic doesn't necessarily mean one has to propose something better either.

I'm of the opinion that degrading system performance can add something to gameplay though.

Sure, you are correct that some things do need to be ditched, but not when many people in the community like the idea. When that happens completely going back and ditching it is thrown off of the table. If you want something else something different your best bet is to come up with an idea and then persuade the rest of the community that it would make the game better then it was prior. I myself believe the most recent update to the game made it superior to what it was beforehand, so going just going back would not please me.

~Toasts

 

[PartyAlarm]

Remember man, he's against degrading ship performance, not scrapping the HP system. It's an element of the system, and not the entire feature itself. (unless you are addressing boarding)

 

[Keptick]

So, as I was saying in that other thread. I build my systems interlaced with each other. So yes, they all go down more or less proportionally and the ship just loses mass without actually losing any efficiency. Perhaps that doesn't happen with your ships, but it does with mine (well, the ones with that type of system webbing).

 

[Bench]

I think everyone will agree I'm pretty reasonable and no one has had an issue with me not being transparent about what's going on. Yes there's things I won't mention in detail or at all, but that's because either myself or the higher-ups don't feel it's the right time to go into depth yet.

The disabling of systems after a certain percentage of structural damage is completely pointless because those systems can be destroyed by the enemy anyway. They probably have already. Like I said earlier: HALF YOUR SHIP. It's gone. I'd be gone at 25% shields, tbh. I'm not repairing that. Are you kidding?

I'll admit from the start I'm not totally across the HP system just yet, but I have sat in staff meetings where schema and others have explained their vision for it. Admittedly this hasn't been in the game before, we haven't seen how it would perform, there's been extensive testing of the mechanics and balancing but there's only so much you can do before we have to push it out and see what the feedback is. Azereiah had it right.

I can get behind a rebalancing, which is the entire purpose of community feedback during alpha. We're not just players, we're testers, simply by nature of the stage of development.

We may find that after seeing how the system goes actually on servers, that yes this particular aspect of the system is redundant. Or we may see that players change the way they build their ships to take advantage of things like armor etc and that the system works to balance pvp a bit, and there's only some numbers that need changing. Balancing and Rebalancing is always happening. Especially as we either add in new mechanics or change the way things work i.e. with thrust improvements.

It's the same with boarding. We have plans for boarding, we like the new dynamics to pvp that boarding will present and there are other features in the game that will integrate well with boarding mechanics. But in order to really flesh out how boarding might operate we need to add a super-simplified system in to just get players starting to toy with the idea, as it hasn't really been an option at all before, and we can see which way is the most practical way to take it as we go forward. The trouble with mechanics like this is that we don't define yes this is exactly the way to do it, because StarMade by nature is where players figure out and build how they want to achieve it themselves. So rather than define exactly how, we give players the tools to then build upon.

I'm asking for some accountability on the part of Schine. Come clean about the fact that YOU DO NOT HAVE A PLAN (which I've already got evidence for, but they just refuse to admit), and maybe we can start to rebuild from the terrible mess you've made of this wonderful game.

I've seen you suggest this a number of times in this thread and the last and it just disappoints me a little. As part of my job here at Schine I actually write most of the documentation for the plans for StarMade so when you've said that, you're basically just belittling all the hours and hours I've put into writing everything and managing it and the roadmaps, making sure it's all kept up to date with the other documents that focus on the particular features and mechanics being added in etc etc. So I don't know what evidence you speak of, and frankly I don't really care, because I know there's evidence to the contrary because I was the one that wrote them.

 

[Mered4]

WARNING: The following post is off topic. Be warned. Thrice.
WARNING: This post may be removed because it does not agree with the forum moderators. Read it while you can! I'll have pictures of it if anyone asks.

I think everyone will agree I'm pretty reasonable and no one has had an issue with me not being transparent about what's going on. Yes there's things I won't mention in detail or at all, but that's because either myself or the higher-ups don't feel it's the right time to go into depth yet.

Of course you don't want to reveal what actually happened. It's bad PR. I understand, but perhaps you should consider that it might better to be honest with the community instead of hiding behind "developer privilege."

"no one has had an issue with me not being transparent about what's going on"

I'll highlight this because I'm not a lone wolf here. I wouldn't have brought this up if you were being transparent. This isn't the first community where I've brought up this subject.

I'll admit from the start I'm not totally across the HP system just yet, but I have sat in staff meetings where schema and others have explained their vision for it. Admittedly this hasn't been in the game before, we haven't seen how it would perform, there's been extensive testing of the mechanics and balancing but there's only so much you can do before we have to push it out and see what the feedback is. Azereiah had it right.

According to your Twitter, you got surprised with the update. This, in conjunction with the server stability problems and continuation of the worst logic bugs in the history of Starmade, leads me to conclude that this update was rushed. What you say here only reinforces that position.

We may find that after seeing how the system goes actually on servers, that yes this particular aspect of the system is redundant. Or we may see that players change the way they build their ships to take advantage of things like armor etc and that the system works to balance pvp a bit, and there's only some numbers that need changing. Balancing and Rebalancing is always happening. Especially as we either add in new mechanics or change the way things work i.e. with thrust improvements.

There is PvP in this game that isn't staged? Whaaaaaaat?
Even listening to other servers it sounds like PvP is either completely one sided or staged.
Look, you can't balance by feel. I've watched optimistic devs say those words and rue the day they uttered them. It only leads to disaster. I understand how to balance test, but your 'team' appears to just be winging it. The changes (as usual) appear to be something made by someone who does not play on a MP Starmade server on a regular basis.

It's the same with boarding. We have plans for boarding, we like the new dynamics to pvp that boarding will present and there are other features in the game that will integrate well with boarding mechanics. But in order to really flesh out how boarding might operate we need to add a super-simplified system in to just get players starting to toy with the idea, as it hasn't really been an option at all before, and we can see which way is the most practical way to take it as we go forward. The trouble with mechanics like this is that we don't define yes this is exactly the way to do it, because StarMade by nature is where players figure out and build how they want to achieve it themselves. So rather than define exactly how, we give players the tools to then build upon.

Boarding is a cool concept. Hell, it might even work in the game with the right implementation. To do so, it needs some key advantages over just shooting the ship to death and salvaging it. The current attempt at boarding has one advantage over the shoot-em-up strategy: You can salvage more of the ship. However, the massive risk involved in that endeavor nullifies its advantages. This is a simple conclusion that could have been realized had you asked anyone outside the team for input before publishing the update. I'd rather have no feature than a rushed, gimmicky mechanic that few will be able to use effectively outside of small-scale PvE and staged videos.

I've seen you suggest this a number of times in this thread and the last and it just disappoints me a little. As part of my job here at Schine I actually write most of the documentation for the plans for StarMade so when you've said that, you're basically just belittling all the hours and hours I've put into writing everything and managing it and the roadmaps, making sure it's all kept up to date with the other documents that focus on the particular features and mechanics being added in etc etc. So I don't know what evidence you speak of, and frankly I don't really care, because I know there's evidence to the contrary because I was the one that wrote them.

I have a question for you Bench. Do you believe that you do good work? Don't give me that look - you are saying here that you take it personally that I am calling you out for these "plans" that I claim do not exist. That's not professional. You are supposed to be a game developer. If someone criticizes your work, why in the world would you take offense? Every 'professional' I've met takes criticism very seriously and believes they do good work. The only reason for you to take offense is if my criticism is valid. I'm not hounding anyone over this - just defending my position on the matter. I expect anyone, no matter their standing in life, to do the same, and to do it as professionally as humanly possible.

I'm not going to presume that you will produce these plans. I doubt you will. Your previous actions and those of DoR and WedTM are very telling. As they say, history repeats itself.

Good Day.
[DOUBLEPOST=1434941935,1434941742][/DOUBLEPOST]

Sure, you are correct that some things do need to be ditched, but not when many people in the community like the idea. When that happens completely going back and ditching it is thrown off of the table. If you want something else something different your best bet is to come up with an idea and then persuade the rest of the community that it would make the game better then it was prior. I myself believe the most recent update to the game made it superior to what it was beforehand, so going just going back would not please me.

~Toasts

You don't have to persuade anyone in the community. They are the game developers. They call the shots. The Council is a privilege, not a right. Their interaction with us, the community, is not required to make a great game. It's nice, yes - but it might not be wholly necessary.

That said, they've thrown themselves into the "COMMUNITY OPINIONS RULE" camp, so we'll contribute.
[DOUBLEPOST=1434942202][/DOUBLEPOST]

View attachment 12956

That's all you need. You don't seem to want to listen to any evidence presented. This is how the actually numbers play out of % blocks vs % debuff. Sure it will apply different to every ship in every battle but the system allows for a gradual slope to "dead ship" instead of 55%, 54%, 53%, 52%, 51%, 0%

You are arguing pure opinion, and that is pointless. It is your opinion that the system is useless and unless your willing to change that opinion this isn't an actual debate as you will continue to bury your head in the sand singing lalalalala and never actually listen to any evidence. Plenty of other people have also stated their opinions such as it being more immersive and you've just shot them down. This really feels like nothing more than flame bait, one thread was already locked. This one should not exists.

Also I love arguments and debates as well. The most fun I've had debating is when somebody actually changes my mind on an issue.

In what way am I arguing pure opinion?
Last time I checked, I was pointing to experiences with the system and logical thought. My opinion is present, yes, but I'm not opposed to this gimmicky implementation because I don't like it. I think it's pretty cool, actually

"That's all you need. You don't seem to want to listen to any evidence presented. This is how the actually numbers play out of % blocks vs % debuff. Sure it will apply different to every ship in every battle but the system allows for a gradual slope to "dead ship" instead of 55%, 54%, 53%, 52%, 51%, 0%"

As I said in the previous thread, 0% isn't a dead ship. 50% is a dead ship. You gradually lose system performance during the battle as you lose pieces of your ship. We don't need extra math because we want a straight line on a graph.

 

[FlyingDebris]

After having just read all of both threads, I feel confident enough to make my own observation.

Mered, you do not understand the true situation of things because you only play on one server which is an outlier in terms of what players are allowed to do. Yes, the update did feel a little rushed and yes the rails are buggy, but they are most definitely part of a larger plan and will be fixed in due time. Your opinion on the ship systems seens to stem from a lack of actual experience with it, as I have had numerous battles with the new system and I have found that the 55% cutoff is a fantastic way to a) cripple a ship and take it via boarding, b) surgically destroy parts to leave as many blocks intact, and c) open negotiations with the crippled ship's pilot in exchange for the damaged vessel and their life.

I mean no offense by this, but I do not believe you have really used the system beyond the sheltered confines of the MushroomFleet server, and it is showing in your inability to comprehend others' arguments on the subject.

 

[Bench]

Of course you don't want to reveal what actually happened. It's bad PR. I understand, but perhaps you should consider that it might better to be honest with the community instead of hiding behind "developer privilege."

I'm not sure what you're referring to here so I won't say anything.

"no one has had an issue with me not being transparent about what's going on"

I'll highlight this because I'm not a lone wolf here. I wouldn't have brought this up if you were being transparent. This isn't the first community where I've brought up this subject.

Reading back I didn't write this sentence properly, stupid double negatives. What I meant was that I've been pretty transparent when people have asked questions about things. You need only flick through the resulting conversations that have come out of the dev blogs to see that I've been happy to expand on community members' questions. In fact the fact that dev blogs even exist should show my desire to be fairly transparent with the community. That sentence was supposed to suggest that I haven't had anyone tell me I haven't been transparent enough about what's going on. Anyway.

According to your Twitter, you got surprised with the update. This, in conjunction with the server stability problems and continuation of the worst logic bugs in the history of Starmade, leads me to conclude that this update was rushed. What you say here only reinforces that position.

My Twitter comment was actually in repsonse to the boarding stuff specifically, which schema added in himself as he's entitled to do. It was a surprise and cool to see, that's why it's very simple and basic at the moment. The other stuff in the update has been in the works for quite a while.

Boarding is a cool concept. Hell, it might even work in the game with the right implementation. To do so, it needs some key advantages over just shooting the ship to death and salvaging it. The current attempt at boarding has one advantage over the shoot-em-up strategy: You can salvage more of the ship. However, the massive risk involved in that endeavor nullifies its advantages. This is a simple conclusion that could have been realized had you asked anyone outside the team for input before publishing the update. I'd rather have no feature than a rushed, gimmicky mechanic that few will be able to use effectively outside of small-scale PvE and staged videos.

It would appear that FlyingDebris has had successful experiences with boarding, I'm sure others will to. Again we'll see what it evolves into. And our plans do include additional advantages that will exist for boarding a ship vs just shooting it to pieces.

I have a question for you Bench. Do you believe that you do good work? Don't give me that look - you are saying here that you take it personally that I am calling you out for these "plans" that I claim do not exist. That's not professional. You are supposed to be a game developer. If someone criticizes your work, why in the world would you take offense? Every 'professional' I've met takes criticism very seriously and believes they do good work. The only reason for you to take offense is if my criticism is valid. I'm not hounding anyone over this - just defending my position on the matter. I expect anyone, no matter their standing in life, to do the same, and to do it as professionally as humanly possible.

I believe my work speaks for itself. It disappoints me that after every update someone will come out and be like "Oh Schine, what are you doing, you're messing up the game. Do you even plan?" and it's getting a bit old even for me, and I have a great deal of patience. I respect your right to defend your position as any of us do. At the end of the day though we're all human and we all have our own ways to respond to criticism, regardless of our profession.

I'm not going to presume that you will produce these plans. I doubt you will.

Of course I won't publish them publicly, it wouldn't be professional.

Your previous actions

Lol, umm what? What previous actions? No really, what actions?

 

[BraveSteelDragon]

*Reads the topic, and understands of how absurd things have gotten by now*

...

*Takes a deep breath, and comes up with a long and detailed resume of his thoughts about the whole thing*

Why? Just... Why?

I'm going to ignore, with a significant disgust, all the "you did this" and that kind of ad-personam stuff that is going on, and get onto the matter at hand.

HP. Hit points.
The word(s) itself describe something you "hit", and that looses (or gains) points.
The HP system, as far as i could gather, is meant to give you well FOUR layers of protection, from being instantly killed.

1. Shields, which regenerate.
2. Armor, that takes the hit first when shields are K.O.
3. Structure, that defines how much of your actual ship is left, based on values specific of each block type.
4. The ship's own internal structure, as harder blocks will be harder to destroy etc. Not to mention the possible hallways that allow you (or other people) to enter/leave the ship.

Mered, you argue that "disabling systems below a certain percentage doesn't make for an appropriate combat experience".
How?
SM is NOT the only game to have a similar system. And yet they work fine.
Examples?

• EVE-Online: T3 Cruiser, as they feature a particular set of mechanics, if the ship's destroyed with the pilot in it, the pilot will loose SP. A good reason to eject when the fight's turning grim, and a incentive for the enemy to not go guns blazing again those ship until they turn into shavings.
• World of Tanks/Warships/Warplanes/Armored Warfare, and other of the genre: When a module is hit, it'll loose a part of its hitpoints, resulting in reduced efficency, or even the destruction of said module. A VERY good reason to value your position in the battlefield, isn't it?
• Arma series: When a vehicle module is damaged, it will not operate at full efficency until the vehicle is taken to a specialized repair area.
• Battlefield 3 (and i suppose even the later ones): When a vehicle of any kind is damaged to a certain threshold, it'll become "disabled", and it won't be able to manuever, and will suffer from fire DoT.

And the list, i'm quite sure, can go on for a long while.
In all the cases i was able to list, the gradual degradation of the vehicle's (or spaceship's) systems efficency, is a very immersive feature, rather than a complete tactical impediment.

I do find agreeable that straight up forcing the ship to overheat below 50% (or more depending on the ship's penalty modifier) can be a bit too much, but hey, if the HeldTech Damocles was up-to-date and combat capable, would you SERIOUSLY want to drill away all those blocks anyway?

TL;DR :
The HP system was a long needed and asked-for addition, and it has already been made noted that it was slightly rushed out. Give it time.
Not even the old docking system was all that great when it was first added in.

 

[I_is_Tinsy]

Mered doesn't seem to be against the HP system, but rather the part where you lose control at 55%, since at that point you've already lost a great deal of your ship and a lot of your systems probably don't work anymore anyways.
I completely understand (at least I think I do) what you are saying Mered4 , though I haven't really had much experience with it myself to come to a conclusion of my own. But one thing I have come to a conclusion on is that you went way off-topic. All of that about a plan for SM's future and the like was completely uncalled for.

 

[Mered4]

After having just read all of both threads, I feel confident enough to make my own observation.

Mered, you do not understand the true situation of things because you only play on one server which is an outlier in terms of what players are allowed to do. Yes, the update did feel a little rushed and yes the rails are buggy, but they are most definitely part of a larger plan and will be fixed in due time. Your opinion on the ship systems seens to stem from a lack of actual experience with it, as I have had numerous battles with the new system and I have found that the 55% cutoff is a fantastic way to a) cripple a ship and take it via boarding, b) surgically destroy parts to leave as many blocks intact, and c) open negotiations with the crippled ship's pilot in exchange for the damaged vessel and their life.

I mean no offense by this, but I do not believe you have really used the system beyond the sheltered confines of the MushroomFleet server, and it is showing in your inability to comprehend others' arguments on the subject.

I didn't actually test any of this on MushroomFleet

I'd also like to point out that what you've mentioned doesn't answer my questions. In light of that, I'll ask some more:

Why would I try to negotiate with a player in PvP? I'm in a position of strength and there is very little to gain from a negotiation. Unless it is a resource haul, there's no reason to offer this guy a chance. And if you are camping salvagers at asteroid fields to do this, you really should find something better to do with your time. That's trolling in my book
Why is negotiating a better option than just killing him and finishing the job with salvagers?

Boarding doesn't offer any advantages over shooting at the enemy's vessel with your own fabulous design. My missiles can remove upwards of 500 blocks per shot, while the torch can remove a block every 30 seconds or so (needs more testing). Now, boarding a larger vessel who you cannot hope to defeat with your own ship makes sense. However, it only takes one interior turret near the core to completely nullify that advantage. That leaves us back at square one: Unless the enemy is completely unprepared and incompetent, boarding has almost no appeal in your average PvP combat.

Can it be fun? Sure - in a video to get views on this cool feature that no one else uses. Does it add a new layer of depth to PvP combat? No. You could try to make these rules on servers where you can't kill anyone unless it is with a handheld weapon. But that's forcing the feature, which never ends well.

 

[Aynslei]

I didn't actually test any of this on MushroomFleet

I would suggest you stop causing issues for the sake of causing an issue until you actually test the system.

Why would anyone negotiate ever? The same reasoning used for that applies to any other situation. Its clear you have never been in a situation where acting like anything other than an ass would be beneficial.

How could you know the appeal of something you clearly refuse try? You demand that something be removed simply because you never plan to be in a smaller ship than your opponents? Until you start making some sense everyone here will continue to laugh at you and your misguided complaints.

 

[Mered4]

I would suggest you stop causing issues for the sake of causing an issue until you actually test the system.

Why would anyone negotiate ever? The same reasoning used for that applies to any other situation. Its clear you have never been in a situation where acting like anything other than an ass would be beneficial.

How could you know the appeal of something you clearly refuse try? You demand that something be removed simply because you never plan to be in a smaller ship than your opponents? Until you start making some sense everyone here will continue to laugh at you and your misguided complaints.

I tested this system the day it came out. I've been doing AI combat tests for the past day, and before that I had a few players help me out. I'm not going to repeat myself. Read what I said and take it at face value.

"Its clear you have never been in a situation where acting like anything other than an ass would be beneficial."

Oh? Last time I checked, getting shot at is hostile intent. I don't pull the trigger unless I intend to either kill or seriously maim my opponent. Thus, I don't suggest smashing their ship into a pulp, then acting generous and giving them a way to limp off with a ship they'll just build block and spawn in later. And I expect anyone else at the helm of a dangerous weapon to do the same. Shoot to kill or shoot to disable. There is no in between, and dancing the line is cruelty.

"You demand that something be removed simply because you never plan to be in a smaller ship than your opponents?"
Read the thread. Both of them. Instead of confronting the issue, you are insinuating that my logic is based on personal bias. Not only are you wrong, it's actually sad that you have to stoop to that level in an attempt to shut down a debate.

 

[Aynslei]

OP you shut this topic down long ago by going far off topic and straight up insulting the devs and recent work done, don't expect kitten mittens when people handle you.

In your limited view of how people play this game you can't accept that others may find value in negotiation? (That much is clear in how you act here.)

Until you prove you can explain in a calm and direct manner no one here will take anything you say seriously.

 

[Mered4]

OP you shut this topic down long ago by going far off topic and straight up insulting the devs and recent work done, don't expect kitten mittens when people handle you.

In your limited view of how people play this game you can't accept that others may find value in negotiation? (That much is clear in how you act here.)

Until you prove you can explain in a calm and direct manner no one here will take anything you say seriously.

If that wasn't calm and direct, I don't know what is. I'm asking you specific questions on the topic and you refuse to even consider them. Please stay on topic or be specific.

I'm not asking for kitten mittens. I'm asking you to explain where I'm wrong with logical reasoning and deduction, or present evidence of the same. It's not hard.

 

[Lecic]

Why would I try to negotiate with a player in PvP? I'm in a position of strength and there is very little to gain from a negotiation. Unless it is a resource haul, there's no reason to offer this guy a chance. And if you are camping salvagers at asteroid fields to do this, you really should find something better to do with your time. That's trolling in my book
Why is negotiating a better option than just killing him and finishing the job with salvagers?

Well, for starters, if you're at war and you negotiate a surrender instead of just blowing them up, they might be a little more likely to enter peace talks. Instead of "these guys are lunatics who kill people who are already dead in the water," you get "these guys are somewhat reasonable, maybe we can negotiate a ceasefire."

Also, finishing off that last 5 percent to actually kill the ship could be quite a few blocks on a larger ship. It's more worth your resources to let the guy run away in an escape pod than to destroy what could potentially be a few thousand blocks.

BTW, ambushing an enemy miner is a legitimate tactic. It's called "depriving the enemy of resources," and you can't win a war as long as the enemy has stuff left to attack you with.

Boarding doesn't offer any advantages over shooting at the enemy's vessel with your own fabulous design. My missiles can remove upwards of 500 blocks per shot, while the torch can remove a block every 30 seconds or so (needs more testing). Now, boarding a larger vessel who you cannot hope to defeat with your own ship makes sense. However, it only takes one interior turret near the core to completely nullify that advantage. That leaves us back at square one: Unless the enemy is completely unprepared and incompetent, boarding has almost no appeal in your average PvP combat.

You can board an enemy once they're below 50% shields, and interior turrets will be no worry because you can just take them out with handheld rocket launchers.

As for the torch being too weak, all it needs is a bit of a buff- 15 DPS would be good, in my opinion. That's 16.6 seconds to take out advanced armor, forcefields, and blast doors, which sounds reasonable to me.

Additionally, a ship's weapons and disintegrators would not be able to hit a player that's aligned to it, to prevent hallway clearing pulses and such.

IMO, turrets set to target astronauts should not get any protection from the mothership, and shouldn't work if they have shields, if we really want boarding to work.

Can it be fun? Sure - in a video to get views on this cool feature that no one else uses. Does it add a new layer of depth to PvP combat? No. You could try to make these rules on servers where you can't kill anyone unless it is with a handheld weapon. But that's forcing the feature, which never ends well.

"I can't believe this feature that was added as a base for future features in like an hour isn't completely balanced and viable!!!!! This was added just to look cool for videos and will have no future updates whatsoever!!1!!!"