Edymnion
Carebear Extraordinaire!
Hell, I still don't allow faction members. I strictly 1 man band it.
Remember, the question wasn't name a game that Dr. Whammy enjoys. The question was name a successful game where player's stuff could be destroyed or stolen. I answered, and you don't like that so you're going after the quality of the game but you cannot deny that Eve has been a successful game. So I have correctly answered the question you avoided my question with. You've bought yourself some time. Can you answer now? Ever?Eve? That's your big example? I've actually played that game.
First, your Eve Online example is a weak argument since you can ONLY lose your stuff when you fly and not while you're asleep. POS is an option in the game, not a requirement. Thus, your example is invalid. Second of all, no matter how you want to twist it, StarMade is not a war game. Could it be played as one? sure, but that's not its focus.Remember, the question wasn't name a game that Dr. Whammy enjoys. The question was name a successful game where player's stuff could be destroyed or stolen. I answered, and you don't like that so you're going after the quality of the game but you cannot deny that Eve has been a successful game. So I have correctly answered the question you avoided my question with. You've bought yourself some time. Can you answer now? Ever?
Name a successful game filled with massive variety of weapons, several classes of armor, shields, defensive and offensive buffs and debuffs - absolute shittons of combat related systems - where all players are able to be 100% invulnerable 90% of the time and are very difficult to engage when vulnerable for brief periods.
Again; not a war game. Your assertion that people should be punished for having a life outside of a video game because you like war is immature and unreasonable.I contend that there is no such game and cannot be. SM is not going to be the first warless war game to break the mold because most gamers don't want a war game without wars. If SM continues to focus extensively on weapons and armor and shield systems, military fleets (fleet attack, fleet defend), and other military game aspects and continues to prohibit productive military action by making players totally invulnerable, it will fold sooner rather than later.
Actually, I'm not interested in your merit or in solving your little puzzle. It's irrelevant since my position was never about whether or not people should be subject to being defeated in PVP. It is, and always has been about equalization so that new players can stand a chance via tactics and special weapons. You on the other hand, started peddling the idea that people need to keep 24/7 tabs on their stuff to avoid losing everything. I'm not sure if you've been reading the other members' posts but they don't seem to share you enthusiasm for that.Yes - many players enjoy simply designing. That does not prove that most players don't want to fight, and nothing prevents them designing in SP or on carebear servers regardless of HB invulnerability status in vanilla MP.
Unless you can come up with that example I don't see your claims regarding what players want as having much merit.
Your assertion that people should be punished for having a life outside of a video game
I seem to have forgotten writing those things... where was that exactly?You on the other hand, started peddling the idea that people need to keep 24/7 tabs on their stuff to avoid losing everything.
I bet.Actually, I'm not interested in your merit or in solving your little puzzle.
More strawman arguments? You have fun with that. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject.Dude. Chill out.
No one has demanded outlawing non-PvP play in SM. Stop pretending we are.
I seem to have forgotten writing those things... where was that exactly?
I bet.
Name a successful game filled with massive variety of weapons, several classes of armor, shields, defensive and offensive buffs and debuffs - absolute shittons of combat related systems - where all players are able to be 100% invulnerable 90% of the time and are very difficult to engage when vulnerable for brief periods.
I contend that there is no such game and cannot be. SM is not going to be the first warless war game to break the mold because most gamers don't want a war game without wars. If SM continues to focus extensively on weapons and armor and shield systems, military fleets (fleet attack, fleet defend), and other military game aspects and continues to prohibit productive military action by making players totally invulnerable, it will fold sooner rather than later.
No worries - I haven't made a real suggestion on this thread regarding how stations can be successfully be made vulnerable without exposing players to permakill. I have here though, because I wasn't immediately attacked by rabid posters who just want to argue about what's impossible and accuse people of video-fascism instead of dialoging about how things can be improved.Sorry for the long post but some of your arguments are incredibly flawed or leaving out major details that i thought needed to be addressed.
Then he immediately wheels on me and accuses me of demanding the same non-sense and accuses me of all kinds of things I have never said nor implied.Suggesting changes to HB protection is not equivalent to suggesting allowing players be able to be perma-killed.
I'll just say this.The problem in the first place is that the discussion was never even allowed to go there because as soon as anyone mentions scrapping the 100% invulnerable status quo, reactionaries jump all over the dialogue screaming that we hate people and "want to punish them for having lives" and other such utterly absurd bullshit.
snip
So I liked your post, but I'm not sure which parts of my "argument" you feel are so deeply flawed...
snip
Isn't this a big generization? What if homebase protection only could protect a certain size of station? It wouldn't be a homebase as much as a "backup", maybe not allow turrets on it(turret dockers). It would have just enough space for people to get started and make some factories.I'll just say this.
The day 100% invincibility of faction homes goes away, for any reason, is the day I stop playing Starmade and never look back.
I don't care what justifications someone comes up with, the ability to completely wipe someone off the map (and face it, that is what destroying a faction home means, wiping out every last block someone owns so that they are incapable of starting over) is a HORRIBLE mechanic to allow, for any reason, and will only be abused.
This is the core of the issue. Some of it can be solved through better NPC stations to distract players, some of it can be solved through different homebase systems^^^, some can be somlved through more rewarding combat, and some through player attitude.It's about having your crap blown up/stolen while your offline.
No, it is a statement of fact.Isn't this a big generization? What if homebase protection only could protect a certain size of station? It wouldn't be a homebase as much as a "backup", maybe not allow turrets on it(turret dockers). It would have just enough space for people to get started and make some factories.
As long as they didn't just put all of everything they own into one base, they should just lose tons of stuff. It in itself solves the "single base" problem. By removing invincibility you create the need for escape gates and backup stations. Even if someone actually put everything they own to the block on one station and then got destroied, they should still have blocks from their inventory, most people always have at least a ship core and you should have at least some power and an engine. If you die and it is one of those Hardcore servers where you lose all your inventory when you die(and if you die when they attack this means they are just stronger and attacked you), you still have some credits. Other players could help you to.you don't even have the ability to restart on the server by yourself because you don't have the ship or the means to get a ship to reach a new system on your own. Destroying a homebase is, in no uncertain terms, one player banning another player from the server.
Okay, greifer attacks. Antiastronaut turrets, maybe some missile beam and cannon cannon push to keep them back.coordinated griefer attacks
Are these greifers or is this some really big cool faction?50 people logged in at 3 am and went on a killing spree, destroying anything that wasn't a faction home.
This is just one really big, awsome, powerful faction purging the galaxy. The problem isn't that the stations are going to become vunerable to little guys with peashooters, but that they are getting outshot by a simply a stronger fighting force.I have seen (and had) warp gate stations with millions of shields and enough firepower to take down a large cruiser destroyed as part of that razing.
No, these were griefers. They were all throw away accounts that were not on the server prior to the attack, and never logged in again after the attack. We all compared our individual enemies list for names, and checked against the server logs. They were brand new.This is just one really big, awsome, powerful faction purging the galaxy. The problem isn't that the stations are going to become vunerable to little guys with peashooters, but that they are getting outshot by a simply a stronger fighting force.
I almost completely agree with this. It's like I wrote this post myself.No, it is a statement of fact.
A homebase being destroyed is like playing Hardcore mode in Diablo. You die and your character is deleted forever. Except even worse because now you don't even have the ability to restart on the server by yourself because you don't have the ship or the means to get a ship to reach a new system on your own. Destroying a homebase is, in no uncertain terms, one player banning another player from the server.
I have seen coordinated griefer attacks from people that raze servers for the lulz. I have been targetted by such attacks (along with others on the server). Its not a matter of fighting back, its not a matter of not pissing people on the server off, its simply a matter of "50 people logged in at 3 am and went on a killing spree, destroying anything that wasn't a faction home." I have seen (and had) warp gate stations with millions of shields and enough firepower to take down a large cruiser destroyed as part of that razing.
I honestly don't give two craps about your ability to wage total pvp war. I don't care that you don't get to wipe people out completely so that you can't really "win" the game. I don't care that you get frustrated by people "turtling" by "hiding in their faction home". I care about being able to play the game at all.
And the instant homebase invincibility is removed, for any reason, thats it. I'm done, I'm out, I'm uninstalling Starmade and never looking back. To me, homebase invincibility is the *ONLY* thing that makes the game playable.
Ow! Talk about a slap to the pride! Actually, that sounds nice: Nickizzy, Serverkiller:Dremoving invulnerability completely is the death of multiplayer, griefers like Nickizzy will kill it.
Then there is something seriously wrong with that server. There is no way anyone should be able to get on and overnight, probably in less than 3 hours, get a better ship than established player's bases, and then still have time to wreck through the galaxy destorying everything.No, these were griefers. They were all throw away accounts that were not on the server prior to the attack, and never logged in again after the attack. We all compared our individual enemies list for names, and checked against the server logs. They were brand new.
And everybody got hit. If it was somebody on the server, they shot themselves in the foot and then stuck around to rebuild? That makes no sense.
And yes, one of my gates had at least a dozen anti-astronaut turrets all around it, again as many PDTs, it still went down overnight.
News flash, there are entire boards of people that do nothing but organized trollings of message boards and attacks on games. They literally do it just for the lulz. If you haven't encountered them on the internet, consider yourself lucky.