Interserver Facs Big Facs Small Facs Fight (is that a problem)

[Ultragamer2000]

I have a very important question.
Is interserver factions claiming large swaths of territory of native server factions, or big factions attacking small unprepared factions a problem? Does this cause inbalance and people to quit? Should somebody defend the small factions from the big bad factions or the factions of one server from an large interserver faction
Has anyone done anything about this?

Is all this a major problem?

 

[jorgekorke]

I have a very important question.
Is interserver factions claiming large swaths of territory of native server factions, or big factions attacking small unprepared factions a problem? Does this cause inbalance and people to quit? Should somebody defend the small factions from the big bad factions or the factions of one server from an large interserver faction
Has anyone done anything about this?

Is all this a major problem?

Not at all. At least, from the people I hear, they quit SM for other reasons. Faction is one of those problems, but it's exactly the opposite vision of it, most complain from the lack of action.

 

[-Moose-]

I concur, I am active on the NASS server right now and it seems like people have zero interest in a good fight.

simply put there is no reason to expand, so people don't.

 

[Heillos]

The above posts are correct.

The long-standing issue is a lack of actual reasons to fight: people still conduct arranged combat with some frequency, but battles don't organically happen on survival PvP servers. If you threaten a weaker party, they'll dock up at HB until you are bored. They don't have a reason to do anything which would risk them assets and/or FP.

Hell, even larger factions don't do a lot in terms of claiming, unless the server uses an "inverted FP" (members drain FP, claiming sectors increases it) config. Temporary claims for mining, and enough claims to keep FP up, sure, but those are still very limited reasons to do much.

 

[Ultragamer2000]

So you guys are saying instead of making a faction that defends the small factions from the big ones I should make a faction that kills the crap out of everybody?

 

[Malacodor]

So you guys are saying instead of making a faction that defends the small factions from the big ones I should make a faction that kills the crap out of everybody?

No, you should make a faction, that tries to kill the crap out of everybody, but loses every time. :p

 

[Ultragamer2000]

Well stellar fleetworks designs (which are entirely mine as of now) do need to be used!

 

[-Moose-]

So you guys are saying instead of making a faction that defends the small factions from the big ones I should make a faction that kills the crap out of everybody?

Depends on your server. Some let you get away with almost anything others will barely let you use the torch.

I would be straight with people. Get a list of players who want a pc to attack them. Maybe a reasonable mass range. That way you don't have to worry about newbies or whiners complaining to the admin.

 

[Ultragamer2000]

Depends on your server. Some let you get away with almost anything others will barely let you use the torch.

I would be straight with people. Get a list of players who want a pc to attack them. Maybe a reasonable mass range. That way you don't have to worry about newbies or whiners complaining to the admin.

You mean only PVP servers or all servers
That sounds insane that on a PVP server you can't even use the torch

 

[-Moose-]

I can't speak for all servers. Just that Some PvP servers are more strict then others. A quick glance at the server rules or a quick chat with an admin can save you from having to restart on another server because you stole the wrong ship.

 

[jorgekorke]

PvP is so unrewarding in StarMade that you need to absolutely hate and despise the person in order to do anything at all.

 

[Vengeance42]

Right now Starmade combat is a negative sum game.

A positive sum game is like a voluntary economic trade, where both sides value what they get in trade higher than what they give up. A zero sum game is where one sides gain is the other sides loss (like in a war over natural resources).

A winner in starmade doesn't gain and likely even has ship damage. The loser loses his ship completely. Net loss for both sides. Until this changes people will likely huddle in starbases when a more powerful ship is near.

The few times I have engaged in starmade PvP was against server "jerks". Actually, a server jerk might even serve a purpose, liven things up a bit.

 

[Nickizzy]

Sometimes I'm tempted to go on an IFP server and, after starting up, claiming vast swaths of territory with an easily findable and recognizable claim station of reasonable difficulty. Maybe a warpgate or two on each one. Then people would be more tempted to take some of my territory and actually fight for it. I could also get all the individualists together into one group as well with all that FP...

 

[ZombieMouse]

Right now Starmade combat is a negative sum game. [...] A winner in starmade doesn't gain and likely even has ship damage. The loser loses his ship completely. Net loss for both sides.

Both sides lose... well that's what war is

Co-operation should yield more economic benefit than war, so in that sense things seem about right.

 

[Heillos]

Both sides lose... well that's what war is

Co-operation should yield more economic benefit than war, so in that sense things seem about right.

This is a video game, not a complex representation of actual conflict and the manifold consequences thereof.

Combat, in particular between players, is one of the primary pillars of the game, especially at the game's present stage of development. Throughout the game's development, PvP combat should, and most likely will be, improved and justified (through economic or other gains).

Cooperation should still produce relevant potential for economic gain, but in games, risk/reward should be given consideration too. It's fairly logical, in this context, that the greater risk of PvP combat should probably offer greater potential reward.

 

[Valck]

I think that's already quite off topic from the OP's question, but I'll risk further derailing the thread...

Both sides lose... well that's what war is

Co-operation should yield more economic benefit than war, so in that sense things seem about right.

This is a video game, not a complex representation of actual conflict and the manifold consequences thereof.

Combat, in particular between players, is one of the primary pillars of the game, especially at the game's present stage of development. Throughout the game's development, PvP combat should, and most likely will be, improved and justified (through economic or other gains).

Cooperation should still produce relevant potential for economic gain, but in games, risk/reward should be given consideration too. It's fairly logical, in this context, that the greater risk of PvP combat should probably offer greater potential reward.

Direct, short-term economic gain (aka. "loot") shouldn't be the reason for war, even "if it's just a game". It may be reason enough for a skirmish, but not for a war. It may be reason enough in a simple shoot-em-up game, but I hope we can agree that StarMade neither is, nor intends to be, just that.

What you expect to gain from a war are indirect, long-term economic benefits, by expanding your territory, thereby gaining more resources, and/or denying same to your opponent. For that goal you have to expect to expend resources first, by going to war and sustaining damage, which you hope you will make up for after you have won. If you can't at least hope to benefit in some way, don't go to war, period. If you risk starting a war by initiating a skirmish, maybe think twice.

If you want to just spar with no risk of loss, set up the conditions - a creative mode PvP server may be the thing.
In my opinion, on a survival server economy should be very much the fuel that drives everything, not the prize ships you capture from other players. That may be the icing of the cake, but you have to have the cake too, even if it sometimes tastes like saw dust.

Currently there are few reasons to expand territory, because almost any system already has everything, so why fight over the system that's between you and your neighbour? Uneven distribution of resources that don't respawn, or slow enough to drive players to explore and expand, is something that has been added only recently, and the upcoming addition of NPC factions that compete with players over those resources can be expected to create more competition, and thus more reasons for conflict as well as cooperation, both PvE and PvP.


TL;DR:
Even in games, a Pyrrhic victory should always be one of the inherent risks of a conflict, unless you're talking PacMan or Space Invaders.
And even there, you don't gain anything from the "war" - in the end you always lose everything, you just try to last longer than the ones before you ;)

 

[ZeroRa]

I have a very important question.
Is interserver factions claiming large swaths of territory of native server factions, or big factions attacking small unprepared factions a problem? Does this cause inbalance and people to quit? Should somebody defend the small factions from the big bad factions or the factions of one server from an large interserver faction
Has anyone done anything about this?

Is all this a major problem?

Honestly I hope that some interserver peacekeeping factions would challenge us. Grinding noobs to dust is only entertaining for a few months.

 

[Nickizzy]

I think that's already quite off topic from the OP's question, but I'll risk further derailing the thread...

Direct, short-term economic gain (aka. "loot") shouldn't be the reason for war, even "if it's just a game". It may be reason enough for a skirmish, but not for a war. It may be reason enough in a simple shoot-em-up game, but I hope we can agree that StarMade neither is, nor intends to be, just that.

What you expect to gain from a war are indirect, long-term economic benefits, by expanding your territory, thereby gaining more resources, and/or denying same to your opponent. For that goal you have to expect to expend resources first, by going to war and sustaining damage, which you hope you will make up for after you have won. If you can't at least hope to benefit in some way, don't go to war, period. If you risk starting a war by initiating a skirmish, maybe think twice.

If you want to just spar with no risk of loss, set up the conditions - a creative mode PvP server may be the thing.
In my opinion, on a survival server economy should be very much the fuel that drives everything, not the prize ships you capture from other players. That may be the icing of the cake, but you have to have the cake too, even if it sometimes tastes like saw dust.

Currently there are few reasons to expand territory, because almost any system already has everything, so why fight over the system that's between you and your neighbour? Uneven distribution of resources that don't respawn, or slow enough to drive players to explore and expand, is something that has been added only recently, and the upcoming addition of NPC factions that compete with players over those resources can be expected to create more competition, and thus more reasons for conflict as well as cooperation, both PvE and PvP.


TL;DR:
Even in games, a Pyrrhic victory should always be one of the inherent risks of a conflict, unless you're talking PacMan or Space Invaders.
And even there, you don't gain anything from the "war" - in the end you always lose everything, you just try to last longer than the ones before you ;)

I like this post. It gets some good ideas about war out.

As for short term loot, maybe- capsule scrap? As you destroy blocks, a certain percentage of the total value (if this is only a minor incentive it should be something like 20-50%) for all the basics(mesh crystal capsule) are given to you in scrap form. You can then refine it(like regular scrap) into regular basics.

There's also the idea to make it either less damaging to take over a ship, or make overheating make a ship turn into an asteroid, maybe with a lot longer mining time like 1000 or 2000 salvage power per block. Encourage piracy:p!

Long term- a lot of options. This would be more for factions instead of individualists, everything from politics(interserver faction warfare:p) to resource clusters(grab the rammet system!) to faction point uses in IFP(FP as a trading currency? As a resource for hiring mercinaries-player or NP factions?). It all depends on what you're doing and where the incentive comes from. Having more than one form of long term victory would be great. This needs it's own thread.
[doublepost=1477521842,1477521779][/doublepost]

Sometimes I'm tempted to go on an IFP server and, after starting up, claiming vast swaths of territory with an easily findable and recognizable claim station of reasonable difficulty. Maybe a warpgate or two on each one. Then people would be more tempted to take some of my territory and actually fight for it. I could also get all the individualists together into one group as well with all that FP...

Bump this post idea. Wanna team up anyone?

 

[Heillos]

I like this post. It gets some good ideas about war out.

As for short term loot, maybe- capsule scrap? As you destroy blocks, a certain percentage of the total value (if this is only a minor incentive it should be something like 20-50%) for all the basics(mesh crystal capsule) are given to you in scrap form. You can then refine it(like regular scrap) into regular basics.

Not quite sure what you mean here; do you mean this scrap would just be spawned in space, or transferred straight to the attacking ship? Pretty dubious either way. I think the idea you proposed next has more merit/makes more sense.

There's also the idea to make it either less damaging to take over a ship, or make overheating make a ship turn into an asteroid, maybe with a lot longer mining time like 1000 or 2000 salvage power per block. Encourage piracy:p!

Not possible, at present; "salvage HP" (the "damage" a salvager has to do to break a block) is set in blockBehaviorConfig.xml for salvagers, and is an overall value for all blocks (it is not set individually). I don't know how practical it would be for every block to have its own salvage value instead.

As to ships turning into wrecks/asteroids of some sort, this would definitely need a "decay" timer, probably 24hrs or less, to avoid excessive server clutter. Wrecks are probably just relevant for the period immediately after the battle, anyway.

Long term- a lot of options. This would be more for factions instead of individualists, everything from politics(interserver faction warfare:p) to resource clusters(grab the rammet system!) to faction point uses in IFP(FP as a trading currency? As a resource for hiring mercinaries-player or NP factions?). It all depends on what you're doing and where the incentive comes from. Having more than one form of long term victory would be great. This needs it's own thread.

All pretty valid concepts; there's definitely a lot of discussion to be had in a different thread about this.

 

[Nickizzy]

Not quite sure what you mean here; do you mean this scrap would just be spawned in space, or transferred straight to the attacking ship? Pretty dubious either way. I think the idea you proposed next has more merit/makes more sense.

Yea, I've thought of it before. It would be something akin to FtD's system, as for where it would go, probably in the same way a salvager can be linked to a storage. So it would be an optional(and slightly space inefficient) option for increasing profit.

As to ships turning into wrecks/asteroids of some sort, this would definitely need a "decay" timer, probably 24hrs or less, to avoid excessive server clutter. Wrecks are probably just relevant for the period immediately after the battle, anyway.

Definitely for anything small, like only a few hours, but as it gets larger I think it'd be worth it to keep it for longer and longer periods. As long as there isn't to many, it's only saving a ship or asteroid in an unloaded sector anyway. All power and weapon ticking would disable. Animations would stop(?). The ship has shut down.