Do not make this game die

[Dr. Whammy]

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.

Dude, did you even read my post?

This capital ship (or what's left of it) was taken from an enemy by using nothing but 2 tiny stealth ships, some warheads, 2 torches and small arms. He was actively attacking my base...

Now, Imagine what kind of damage I could do to your infrastructure while you're asleep with no home base protection. Still think offline vulnerability is a good idea?

 

[Crashmaster]

Re-balancing homebase protection does not have to equal "free griefing.' No-one is suggesting simply dumping HBP in the current system (at least I don't think so) but that seems to be what people resisting change argue about.

Will one-man factions even be a thing of the game's future? I would like to think changes to HPB that encourage players grouping into larger factions for protection might be good for the game.

It seems like there will always be a disconnect between competitive and socialite gaming styles. Whether they should or could be made to work together on one config, well I don't know. Probably no give from either side.

 

[Edymnion]

You don't even need that.

You can have I believe its up to 6 alt names associated with your main account. You get a buddy in there, log in with one, have him hold your starter money and blocks. Log out, log in with the next one. Pool your cash and blocks, buy the blocks you need to spawn in a blueprinted easy build attack ship.

Now do that several dozen times and you can easily have an overwhelming fleet with enough alpha damage to take down any amount of shielding and instant kill just about anything in the opening salvo.

Take down one target, salvage its parts to add to your ships or sell for cash to buy more parts from shops, and spread out. And this was before you could have each player flying their own fleet.

This game is ridiculously easy to grief if you actually try, and have the manpower to back it up. Was not kidding when I said HBI was the only thing keeping this game playable.

It seems like there will always be a disconnect between competitive and socialite gaming styles. Whether they should or could be made to work together on one config, well I don't know. Probably no give from either side.

And I come from a background (mostly WoW) where PvE was constantly being nerfed because of PvP. Left a very bad taste in my mouth for anyone that claims hurting the core game (PvE) for the sake of PvP is good or even acceptable.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Let's get this issue straight. No one is absolutely opposing a re-balancing as long as it's reasonable.

I'm going to spell this out again for anyone not paying attention. The concern is, and always has been; We don't want offline vulnerability. If all our work can be completely destroyed while we are working/sleeping in the real world, why would we be incentivsed to play the game?

What happened to your constructive spirits? I've posted what I think is a very reasonable compromise to home base protection and a good fix for PVP. Did anyone actually read it or do you guys just want to argue for the sake of arguing? Hell, if you don't like it, that's fine too but come up with something.

 

[Edymnion]

but come up with something.

Why? Leave it the way it is. If anything, I'd be in favor for expanding HBI to the entire SECTOR the HB is in after seeing certain someones post about how they like to cut dockers off of ships so they can't use their HBI at all.

 

[Nickizzy]

Dude, did you even read my post?

This capital ship (or what's left of it) was taken from an enemy by using nothing but 2 tiny stealth ships, some warheads, 2 torches and small arms. He was actively attacking my base...

Now, Imagine what kind of damage I could do to your infrastructure while you're asleep with no home base protection. Still think offline vulnerability is a good idea?

Isn't that the point of stealth ships? However, he still would need to exit to use the torch gun, and warheads currently are really weak(unless that server has better warhead configs?) it must have been incomplete, because otherwise small arms would be useless. Anything not totally done(or at least not with shields for it's size) should be done in a shipyard.

It would be nice to have a logicified scanner to detect stealth ships(if you can do that), otherwise... Stealth ships are stealth ships for a reason.

Is this the same server?
[DOUBLEPOST=1460744735,1460744392][/DOUBLEPOST]

You don't even need that.

You can have I believe its up to 6 alt names associated with your main account. You get a buddy in there, log in with one, have him hold your starter money and blocks. Log out, log in with the next one. Pool your cash and blocks, buy the blocks you need to spawn in a blueprinted easy build attack ship.

Now do that several dozen times and you can easily have an overwhelming fleet with enough alpha damage to take down any amount of shielding and instant kill just about anything in the opening salvo.

Take down one target, salvage its parts to add to your ships or sell for cash to buy more parts from shops, and spread out. And this was before you could have each player flying their own fleet.

This game is ridiculously easy to grief if you actually try, and have the manpower to back it up. Was not kidding when I said HBI was the only thing keeping this game playable.
And I come from a background (mostly WoW) where PvE was constantly being nerfed because of PvP. Left a very bad taste in my mouth for anyone that claims hurting the core game (PvE) for the sake of PvP is good or even acceptable.

Ok, thats abuse of the spawning system, something thats a totally different issue, I get your point that it it possible to use certain metas to easially grief, but even so, shouldn't any player (unless it's a server where they give you billions and junk) be able to double or tripple (or x10-20)their total value, and thus their defense, early on?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Isn't that the point of stealth ships? However, he still would need to exit to use the torch gun, and warheads currently are really weak(unless that server has better warhead configs?) it must have been incomplete, because otherwise small arms would be useless. Anything not totally done(or at least not with shields for it's size) should be done in a shipyard.

It would be nice to have a logicified scanner to detect stealth ships(if you can do that), otherwise... Stealth ships are stealth ships for a reason.

Is this the same server?

No. Just No...

THIS is a stealth ship.

Spoiler

It's built for ambushes and covert insertion of a decent amount of gear. Oh.. and... um... Torpedoes... LOTS of torpedoes.

What we used to take down that capital were a pair of 10-20 mass mini-cloakers, a grapple, a torch, a laser pistol and my sniper rifle. The operation took 15 minutes from start to finish in orbit of my planet. Yeah, he made a mistake getting that close to us and getting distracted by all my pretty architecture but what happens when you're offline and I find your base with this stuff?

Do you really want to take HBI away and find out?

 

[Edymnion]

Ok, thats abuse of the spawning system, something thats a totally different issue

No, its one method through which the main issue being discussed is achieved.

And as long as the game is free and people get starting supplies of any kind, its not one that can be easily patched away.

Anyone who WANTS to abuse the system can and will. Thats why HBI is so important, it is a 100% brick wall that stops the worst of the griefing cold. You can't damage it, you can't vandalize it, and with the normal settings you can't build another station in the same sector as it to wall anyone in.

PvP is all well and good for those that like it, but things that promote PvP at the expense of those who want nothing to do with it are, IMO, unacceptable. Especially when griefing the system is so absurdly easy (hell, I'd also be in favor of removing cutting torches from the game, thats a griefer's wet dream right there).

 

[Crashmaster]

Dr. Whammy scare tactics are weak.

I did read your suggestion, tldr; NPC-placed bounties was my understanding. Your homebase idea would add complication and lag without content IMO.

I'll reach further into the shedder with;

Homebases are vulnerable, block damage occurs, timed takeover mechanic clock starts after HP win as per Do not make this game die, mining/factory looting as well.

Homebase respawns fully with AI active when the takeover mechanic clock expires, long invulnerable period after, homebases are mobile now and their location is not given out in the faction menu.

rip 'er up

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Dr. Whammy scare tactics are weak.

I did read your suggestion, tldr; NPC-placed bounties was my understanding. Your homebase idea would add complication and lag without content IMO.

What you call a 'scare tactic', griefers call standard operating procedure. I'm just making you all aware of what can be done. So tell me; how and why would my home base idea complicate things? It's no different than the other mechanics we already have in the game.

I'll reach further into the shedder with;

Homebases are vulnerable, block damage occurs, timed takeover mechanic clock starts after HP win as per Do not make this game die, mining/factory looting as well.

Homebase respawns fully with AI active when the takeover mechanic clock expires, long invulnerable period after, homebases are mobile now and their location is not given out in the faction menu.

rip 'er up

Now that is complicated. You want to introduce AI to represent a defeated faction base? How exactly does that keep players from getting wiped out?

You PVP junkies never seem to understand that some people simply have little to no interest in fighting and griefing. ...or rather you just don't care; in which case, you're contributing to this problem of people leaving the galaxy and/or "turtling up". Personally, I don't care if PVP happens or not; I honestly have nothing against it. On the other hand, don't force other people to participate in/be subject to PVP by default and certainly don't make their stuff vulnerable while they are offline when they never wanted to fight in the first place. Not unless you want to chase off half the players.

 

[GalactusX]

In my personal opinion, these points are important to make a more suitable game for everyone:

1. Create a missions system, whether they be for novice players or for the veterans, with the ability to edit, add new ones for single player and server side.
2. The tutorials could be more interactive, for example, teleport the player to a virtual space, as a shipyard test ship, and the user has to follow some guidelines to complete the tutorial.
3. Factories, could have a sliding window frame as fleet control, this will not only facilitate find the item you're looking for, putting the ICON of the item, and in the bottom of it the name ( currently only the name of the item ), would also render the interaction was more graphic.
4. Add new options or interactions to the blocks present in the game.
5. Crear mas frecuentemente en la comunidad retos para los jugadores, por ejemplo quien puede hacer las estaciones espaciales mejores, las mejores naves, las mejores cadenas de misiones ( reference point 1 ) ...
6. ....

I do not know which of these points can be done or accomplish, or which are already planned to be implemented, but these implementations could be good for the game, and make old players back and call the attention of new players.

... As i always said.. dont rage.. its only my opinion ...

 

[Edymnion]

Homebase respawns fully with AI active when the takeover mechanic clock expires, long invulnerable period after, homebases are mobile now and their location is not given out in the faction menu.

And the tens of millions of resources stored in said base?

 

[Lecic]

You can have I believe its up to 6 alt names associated with your main account. You get a buddy in there, log in with one, have him hold your starter money and blocks. Log out, log in with the next one. Pool your cash and blocks, buy the blocks you need to spawn in a blueprinted easy build attack ship.

For now, sure, when the game is free. What do you think is going to happen in the future, when the game needs to be bought, and you have a UUID? It's going to happen, or people are going to complain about name theft constantly.

 

[Crashmaster]

What you call a 'scare tactic', griefers call standard operating procedure. I'm just making you all aware of what can be done.

We're all aware of how the game works. I was referring to your using,

what happens when you're offline and I find your base with this stuff? Do you really want to take HBI away and find out?

as an argument in a debate. the definition of scare tactic

So tell me; how and why would my home base idea complicate things? It's no different than the other mechanics we already have in the game.

Your idea is, "same old invulnerability with only docked entities invulnerability based on e/sec." Docked reactors on stations become required meta. Soooo, more complicated invulnerability with a slight chance of invulnerability due to lag or operator error. If you do suffer an attack all the pain-in-the-ass stuff to replace and re-dock will have taken all the damage. Sure it put's an upper limit on invulnerable docked mass but as I understand real big stuff is hidden and not docked anyways.

Now that is complicated. You want to introduce AI to represent a defeated faction base? How exactly does that keep players from getting wiped out?

No. The base comes back exactly as before factioned to the same people as before (but invulnerable for a long time) with it's turrets' AIs set to on as they normally would be to attack (invulnerably) any raiders who have not yet escaped. Perhaps passing on the (temporary) block damage would be better since that would kind of cripple/bypass the anti-astronaut defenses part of the idea.

The base is essentially both invulnerable and defeat-able. Is 'instanced' the word I am looking for? The base owner only stands to lose (a percentage of?) their resources that are found, secured and escaped with and a short period of their bases normal operating time. That all is dependent on if the base is ever found in the first place.

You PVP junkies...

I don't really play PVP, yet, I hope. But I would like to design defenses and traps into my bases. They don't do much else as is. If violent visitors can be made to be a good time for the invaded, wouldn't that be worth some resources that you'll probably never use anyways? I'm also assuming passive resource extraction is implemented before this.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

We're all aware of how the game works. I was referring to your using,



as an argument in a debate. the definition of scare tactic



Your idea is, "same old invulnerability with only docked entities invulnerability based on e/sec." Docked reactors on stations become required meta. Soooo, more complicated invulnerability with a slight chance of invulnerability due to lag or operator error. If you do suffer an attack all the pain-in-the-ass stuff to replace and re-dock will have taken all the damage. Sure it put's an upper limit on invulnerable docked mass but as I understand real big stuff is hidden and not docked anyways.




No. The base comes back exactly as before factioned to the same people as before (but invulnerable for a long time) with it's turrets' AIs set to on as they normally would be to attack (invulnerably) any raiders who have not yet escaped. Perhaps passing on the (temporary) block damage would be better since that would kind of cripple/bypass the anti-astronaut defenses part of the idea.

The base is essentially both invulnerable and defeat-able. Is 'instanced' the word I am looking for? The base owner only stands to lose (a percentage of?) their resources that are found, secured and escaped with and a short period of their bases normal operating time. That all is dependent on if the base is ever found in the first place.




I don't really play PVP, yet, I hope. But I would like to design defenses and traps into my bases. They don't do much else as is. If violent visitors can be made to be a good time for the invaded, wouldn't that be worth some resources that you'll probably never use anyways? I'm also assuming passive resource extraction is implemented before this.

Hmm... another one...

Since (like that other guy) you seem to be more interested in an argument and more specifically, your own preferences than a solution acceptable to all players, I'll ask you these last questions.

Why should any player be forced into PVP (even while offline) when this is not primarily a PVP-based game? What makes your desire to fight other players more important than the needs of those with the urge to create; to such an extent where you force them to be vulnerable to griefer antics when they want no part of them? Finally, given that the original complaint was that this game is at risk of "dying" and given that complaints were also made about how tedious, hard, time-consuming,etc. mining and building are, when "you just wanna fight", why would you insist on forcing a change that will most certainly reduce the game's fan-base even further by chasing off a big chunk of it; the PVE-ers?

 

[nightrune]

Hmm... another one...

Since (like that other guy) you seem to be more interested in an argument and more specifically, your own preferences than a solution acceptable to all players, I'll ask you these last questions.

Why should any player be forced into PVP (even while offline) when this is not primarily a PVP-based game? What makes your desire to fight other players more important than the needs of those with the urge to create; to such an extent where you force them to be vulnerable to griefer antics when they want no part of them? Finally, given that the original complaint was that this game is at risk of "dying" and given that complaints were also made about how tedious, hard, time-consuming,etc. mining and building are, when "you just wanna fight", why would you insist on forcing a change that will most certainly reduce the game's fan-base even further by chasing off a big chunk of it; the PVE-ers?

Pshhhh You can't use logic in here /sarcasm

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Pshhhh You can't use logic in here /sarcasm

Dude, you made me shoot tea out of my nose. Thanks for that.

For the record, logic is my weakness. I like for things to make sense and this whole "kill em while they sleep" bit is making absolutely none.

 

[Crashmaster]

Original talking point;

Let's get this issue straight. No one is absolutely opposing a re-balancing as long as it's reasonable.

I'm going to spell this out again for anyone not paying attention. The concern is, and always has been; We don't want offline vulnerability. If all our work can be completely destroyed while we are working/sleeping in the real world, why would we be incentivsed to play the game? ...

1) Ideas proffered re; base PVP compromise where no work is destroyed whether asleep or not. Caveat; some resources loss. No specific numbers given. Indicate desire for fun for all.

2) Specify no current desire to attack players.

Since (like that other guy) you seem to be more interested in an argument and more specifically, your own preferences than a solution acceptable to all players, I'll ask you these last questions.

I now think that you need to pull your head out of your ass sir. You'll need to to get your foot out of it.



New fall-back point; (plus more b.s. about what I want)

Why should any player be forced into PVP (even while offline) when this is not primarily a PVP-based game? What makes your desire to fight other players more important than the needs of those with the urge to create; to such an extent where you force them to be vulnerable to griefer antics when they want no part of them? Finally, given that the original complaint was that this game is at risk of "dying" and given that complaints were also made about how tedious, hard, time-consuming,etc. mining and building are, when "you just wanna fight", why would you insist on forcing a change that will most certainly reduce the game's fan-base even further by chasing off a big chunk of it; the PVE-ers?

I do believe you have a problem with logic.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Nah, we're done here. You can go screw yourself.

Original talking point;



1) Ideas proffered re; base PVP compromise where no work is destroyed whether asleep or not. Caveat; some resources loss. No specific numbers given. Indicate desire for fun for all.

2) Specify no current desire to attack players.



I now think that you need to pull your head out of your ass sir. You'll need to to get your foot out of it.



New fall-back point; (plus more b.s. about what I want)




I do believe you have a problem with logic.

You can make an ass of yourself just like the other guy if you want but I don't see the forum jumping up to support your idea either. I have nothing more to talk to you about, run along now, before you make yourself look like an even bigger ass.

 

[Crashmaster]

Giving up, resorting to insults,

Nah, we're done here. You can go screw yourself.

Condescending attitude;

...run along now,...

Two surer signs of winning an internet argument I have never seen.

Lack of immediate forum support is less important here then lack of immediate dismissal or in fact any thought out criticism at all IMO.