RP vs PVP = False

[Az14el]

Victim shaming? gee i dunno the threads these cuties are posting in are absolutely asking for it.

Am I still doing it? yes, because we're talking about destruction of some space lego not actual real life physical or sexual abuse. I mean that's completely <want to use an expletive for effect here but not allowed to> insane to even try to compare some vidya loss to, that is the unspoken here, that being "griefed" in a game can make one a legitimate victim? wow like cancer patients too! There is nobody who takes a loss THAT badly, unless anybody would like to raise their hands and correct me. Not that I'll take your block loss or personal offense quite that seriously, just out of scholarly interest.

Now how about them RP/PvE focused servers that already exist and already require consent for pvp?
And are already being paid for by hobbyist community admins who want to run exactly that kind of server even if it means low population on an already low pop game.
So problems being addressed, what seems to be the real problem?

Oh, they're "ded" and unpopular aren't they? damn. Wonder why though?

 

[JinM]

You are seeing it wrong guys. Homebase protection is optional - you can turn it off when you are done mining.

Does anyone know Ethoslab? He abuses any game mechanic or bugs - yes, but he also plays a sandbox game right: He finds new ways to play by using bugs or some weird game mechanics that are not completly implemented.

Example would be HB inuvernability: If you like to have a fight around your own build castle, you can deactivate the HB and all of a sudden you can fight around it.

For the guys saying: hey we want this to be a hard implemented game rule...No you don't want that, the reason you are playing a sandbox where you have to meticulously design each turret and armor plate is: You want that freedom for creativity. And if you want to have it as hard game rule - if it would be that great there would be a server around who explicitly says: HB are forbidden, life dangerous.

Me, for my part, never liked this hardcore Minecraft pvp maps where you have to run away from spawn as fast as possible and dig down in the most uncommon places to hide out in a little hole for 5 hours until you gathered a diamond set - then go out get killed or make 3 kills until this happens and then repeat it. I really don't appreciate to life in a temporary ugly shelter because I know it can get destroyed any time I log off.

Interesting rule would be to have some guys who say: Ok I design a station and you are free to attack it with your fleet (agreed maximum size uppon just because you might lag the server). And that stuff would actually work atm even with the current player numbers. =) (Who doesn't like blowing stuff up =) )

Yes, there would be some nice thrill, if we could destroy parts of HB's but not the entire station. Maybe one day we can exclude entities from the HB protection?

 

[kulbolen]

Yes, there would be some nice thrill, if we could destroy parts of HB's but not the entire station. Maybe one day we can exclude entities from the HB protection?

interesting suggestion; in the meantime just build a 2nd non hb for the purpose of the scenario. we do it with "arena map" style bases designed to be expendable for fighting on ad its pretty fun

 

[Crashmaster]

Yes, there would be some nice thrill, if we could destroy parts of HB's but not the entire station. Maybe one day we can exclude entities from the HB protection?

I made a loose suggestion once about instancing homebases where they could be attacked and possibly defeated/ damaged but would re-spawn shortly afterwards but someone got super triggered by it. So I'll say it again.


Attack initiation;

declared to simplify - the target homebase is declared, invaders must just not be in the hb's 27 sectors for 'x' minute countdown between declare and attack or the timer does not increment, timer visible to both sides,

saving - during the 'x' minute countdown, the hb's crew, if online can dock ships they are using, bring in support, build new stuff, at the end of the countdown the hb ?and docked ships? are saved,

attack - time limited, 'y' minutes to complete the attack, the hb has no special protections - block destruction, to 'win' the attack an attacking astronaut must interface with ?the block at the NAV marker or something not like a cheaply hidden faction block in a sea of capacitors? before the 'y' time limit expires,

reward - loot proportionally based on the hb's stored resources or size that is not taken away from the defeated parties,

re-set - at the end of the attack time limit, the hb is restored to pre-attack state including invulnerability, it cannot have an attack declared on it again for 'z' minutes(days really), ?invaders non-overheated stuff teleported out or left to the hb's turrets?



Problems;
-needs some idea to prevent duping of docked defensive ships on re-set that were undocked to defend
-entities/ characters getting trapped inside destroyed portions of the hb when it is restored
-forces PvP? - iirc this is the point that triggered someone, my stance was that is does no such thing. If the defender is present and does not want to fight they are not forced to and they are only losing the 'y' attack duration time limit amount of time. IMO this was similar to the time lost to having aggressive people visit your invulnerable hb and interrupt whatever you were doing.

Benefits;
-forced astronaut content - station defense Daves?, trap rooms ect,
-loss-less PvP experience for the defender


Questions;
-should the defeated or KIA defender's loose faction points?
-


Not a fully flesh-out idea but maybe some parts could be used by someone else for a better idea that makes homebases something more then a hole we scurry into to sleep.

 

[Scypio]

You should look the other way around and give reasons to leave your homebase or build several stations while keeping homebases while it is currently. For example reasons to claim more than one system, specialized stations/bases only working around bonuses and not maluses and so on. There is plenty of good suggestions and ideas in the forum of this name. Though we don't know what schine is planning and we probably won't see this kind of things before a few years.

 

[NeonSturm]

Which means not being forced to play the game in a way you don't want.

Agree.

Some argue "it's only a game", but I argue "It's a thing most server-admins need help with".

 

[KiloZulu]

I'm positive the general consensus from the few PVPers here and serverside would be a cross the board "no u", both arguments being about as unreasonable as eachother.

They don't have to, of course, but I think it would save them some disappointment.

 

[Az14el]

Like wut?
the disappointment part i mean