StarMade Devblog - Endgame Document Pt. 3

[Lecic]

Misunderstanding #1.
You think I'm talking a week after the server starts. I'm talking 6 months to a year after the server starts. The big factions with all the space have plenty of people early on to control that space. They have built stations, defenses, the whole nine yards. In your scenario, they are able to wage total war and take systems those small rival factions claimed early on. Or if you want to say they can't wage total war and wipe the player out, they simply surround them and blockaid them into their own system with no way out until they either agree to join the faction or they leave the server, and then they take the system. Either way, the largest factions will grow until they consume as much territory as they can before running into another equally large faction that they can't bully around. The strong get stronger by taking out the weaker factions in their way until things have stabilized with only a few large factions left.

Oh yeah, the small factions get picked off one by one by a bigger faction because... Alliances don't exist in your hypothetical, apparently? Why would all the other factions on the server just sit by and let this big faction slowly wipe them out, or even let them get to the point where they could do that in the first place? You don't think the factions that control the most valuable systems aren't going to constantly fighting over and changing hands of them, making it hard for any one faction to consolidate all the power? You don't think other big factions are going to be contesting those systems from the very beginning? Or do you think whoever reaches the valuable systems first is automagically the predetermined winner?

Once a faction has reached empire size, that faction is going to be used to controlling that much power. They're not going to just let it go. So when they start having their founding members retire, or just stop logging in and never coming back, they are going to become alarmed that their membership is dwindling. Which means they're going to start "recruiting" by any means necessary. Which means they're going to start coercing the smaller factions to join them. They might not have the people power anymore, but by this point they have some of the most powerful ships and stations on the server, the small guys aren't going to be able to resist them and they know it. So it becomes a "join us or die" scenario.

Oh yeah, the little factions will definitely just join or "die" instead of forming an alliance and kicking the shit out of a weakened empire that no longer has the manpower to effectively use its fleets.

What you seem to not realize is that your scenario is actually MORE likely in your proposed balance than in mine. Because you want one person to be able to command as many ships as they want to effectively, it would be much easier for an empire to wage this war of "join or die" than in my system, where they would be unable to bring all the resources of their formerly member heavy faction to bear, making them no better than a small faction's fleet on a per battle basis.

And since you continue to miss this point- I am not opposed to solo players and small factions. I am opposed to solo EMPIRES.

 

[Edymnion]

Oh yeah, the small factions get picked off one by one by a bigger faction because... Alliances don't exist in your hypothetical, apparently?

Alliances only delay the inevitable, or BECOME the empire in the end.

Oh yeah, the little factions will definitely just join or "die" instead of forming an alliance and kicking the shit out of a weakened empire that no longer has the manpower to effectively use its fleets.

The empire has far more resource generation, it has automated factory systems, it has AI fleet controls. Considering that the small fry have been relegated to the outer fringes with crap for resources (your words, the systems that aren't good enough for the empires to bother fighting over), they're not going to be able to field anything that is a threat.

And since you continue to miss this point- I am not opposed to solo players and small factions. I am opposed to solo EMPIRES.

Which is essentially opposing solo players, because you've just said you don't want them to be allowed to play the endgame.

I'm opposed to large empires entirely. Which, again, is what I said to begin with. The friction between faction sizes is due to imperialism. There is no need to have giant empires to begin with, all they do is make life worse for everyone not in said empire.

No single individual, or group of individuals, should EVER be allowed to dictate how a server plays. You want to be part of a big empire? Great, as long as that empire doesn't interfere with other players who want nothing to do with you.

Which is why I think we need instanced territory, but thats another story.

---

Although at this point you've made it abundantly clear that you don't care about any players that aren't actively affiliated with you, and don't care if you squash the little guys as long as you get to "win".

Which is another problem with the PvP mentality, that the only way for you to "win" is for someone else to "lose".

 

[Ithirahad]

Or do you think a single player can effectively order about a dozen mining fleets, two dozen patrol fleets, half a dozen bases in foreign allied territory, an occupation of a defeated enemy, and a border standoff with another empire?

Apart from the occupation thing (which probably isn't a feasible mechanic ingame anyway)... IDK if he does, but I do! \o/

If mining fleets are given sufficient autonomy to not defeat their own purpose of making mining not tedious, you could have a fair number of mining fleets out as one person, especially if you had a good way of keeping track of them all.

The whole point of patrol fleets is that they just... patrol, and don't need player poking all the time. You'd just need to set their initial patrol routes, then watch for enemy attacks and replace destroyed ships - and we already have a notification for when your fleet is getting damaged and stat tracking for fleet ships, so that's covered.

IDK what exactly the purpose of bases in allied zones would be in your example, but if it's to provide some function that just works on its own, they need basically zero player attention unless something happens, so... same as above.

A border standoff with another empire would take active management, I'd imagine, but not enough to not be able to do everything else, otherwise the system just wouldn't work in singleplayer or any situation without relatively large factions.

Having more people would be helpful, perhaps, but possibly not necessary.

_________________________
__________
____
​

As for this whole "one-man factions" situation, yes, it does kind of feel like a problem that has to be solved, but unless I'm missing some middle-ground, ultimately the alternative is forcing people to form blobs, and that does not sound much better. In my (limited) experience, such blobs may not necessarily be "drama filled and chaotic" or full of moochers, but rather they tend to be rather transient and amorphous (hence 'blobs'). People appear, people contribute to whatever the faction's doing in a mediocre manner for maybe half an hour, then they get bored and do something else somewhere else. This is partially just a symptom of the game's current state, but I find that it's somewhat indicative of how things will play out regardless of improvements to gameplay. Not every player is or can be a good faction player, so forming viable factions may not always be possible if viability effectively requires some number of players... a situation made much worse by the lack of a single central server.

Really, the only solution I see here is that term that Schine throws around a lot, "scalability." Somehow, the game has to support engaging gameplay for any size of faction. There ought to be some form of empire-building advantage for larger factions, and for servers that wanted to emphasize factions this should be tunable so that grouping up into large factions is more advantageous, but by default the game should be relatively accommodating of whatever size of faction, up to and including the hated one-man.

 

[Edymnion]

Really, the only solution I see here is that term that Schine throws around a lot, "scalability."

Ooh, now thats an idea. Too much to sidetrack this thread into though, so I made a new one: Brainstorming: Scaleable Universes

 

[Zyrr]

Hugbox argument: the forum thread

 

[Lecic]

Alliances only delay the inevitable, or BECOME the empire in the end.

Riiiiiiiiight. Or they just go back to having their own lower scale conflicts or minding their own business like they did before banding together.

The empire has far more resource generation, it has automated factory systems, it has AI fleet controls. Considering that the small fry have been relegated to the outer fringes with crap for resources (your words, the systems that aren't good enough for the empires to bother fighting over), they're not going to be able to field anything that is a threat.

Not good enough to justify the cost of a massive invasion that would take resources away from your forever war over the core systems does not mean useless.

And the small factions don't have automated factories and AI fleets because..?

Which is essentially opposing solo players, because you've just said you don't want them to be allowed to play the endgame.

I'm opposed to large empires entirely. Which, again, is what I said to begin with. The friction between faction sizes is due to imperialism. There is no need to have giant empires to begin with, all they do is make life worse for everyone not in said empire.

No single individual, or group of individuals, should EVER be allowed to dictate how a server plays. You want to be part of a big empire? Great, as long as that empire doesn't interfere with other players who want nothing to do with you.

Yes, you want Asteroid Clicker with a chatbox where everyone is in their own private world, and I want an actual game where the story is player built and the game world evolves over time.

The whole point of a sandbox game is that a single player or group of players CAN change how the universe looks and works. If you have no interest in that, why don't you just play SP and keep a chat program open to the side?

Which is why I think we need instanced territory, but thats another story.

Right, because giving every faction their own private world is definitely how we encourage them to interact. What you want is a PvE only server. Stop trying to ruin the PvP game.

-snip-

You have missed my point entirely, which is that AI should not be able to effectively run a faction for very long, thus requiring a lot of players (or extreme dedication) to maintain a large empire. Single player can be balanced differently, but multiplayer should essentially require multiple players to get big.

Edymnion seems to think I want to entirely lock small factions out of the "end game" of empire building despite me repeatedly saying otherwise. I don't want that, I want the effective maximum size of their empire to be smaller.

 

[Edymnion]

Right, because giving every faction their own private world is definitely how we encourage them to interact. What you want is a PvE only server. Stop trying to ruin the PvP game.

So give them something to fight over that doesn't end with one side or the other being driven off the server?

I know its hard to grasp, but you can have healthy PvP that doesn't rely on destroying everything your opponent has ever made and forcing them to leave the server.

 

[Lecic]

So give them something to fight over that doesn't end with one side or the other being driven off the server?

Right, because the loser can't surrender before total destruction, or slink away to the edge of the galactic rim to regain their strength with the safety of distance between them, or take refuge in an allied or neutral faction's territory as a government in exile, or any number of things.

Again I ask, you clearly are not interested in the "the sand can be moved" aspect of a sandbox game, so why don't you play on a PvE server or just play single player? The reason most people play sandbox games like Starmade is because there is a perpetual risk of danger, of being wiped out, and playing with the knowledge that every action you take is a permanent marker in the history of that universe. That is what makes open world sandbox PvP games interesting and fun.

But hey, I'm open to your idea for a magic box that completely removes territory from importance while also giving something for people to fight over. Let's hear it.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Regarding - " Probable extreme events"; Everything I've mentioned is something that I've personally witnessed or had happen to me on a repeat basis.

Regarding - big empires chasing off the rest of the server's player base; I've seen it and almost had it happen to me several times. When "join or die" are the only options left on a server, I tend to opt for option #3; which is to strip mine all my planets then assemble my entire faction, all my blocks, meta items, cargo and credits into one fleet and send it all into the sun while flipping the bird. Then I'll sit there and watch it all burn before logging off the server. You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir! I said good day!!!

Regarding - big empires scaring off new players; I've seen this happen very frequently. People show up and either beg to join a faction (any faction) so they don't get squashed or they get overwhelmed by the perceived ominous threat of the established factions then leave. Some of those servers still remain but they're not quite as popular as they once were. I've even had new players act afraid of my faction. Which is Ironic, since I'm a builder rather than a dedicated PVPer and I'm anything but hostile.

Regarding - large empires vs many small factions vs alliances; I agree; smaller factions do allow for a more flexible play style for everyone. I've seen and even participated in this scenario. For example, I once teamed up with members of 2 other factions to teach a bully/griefer a lesson. That lesson cost him a capital ship and resulted in him packing up and leaving that area of the galaxy when he found out that we located his base.

In another example, as a 1P faction, I used my neutrality rather than firepower actually to end a war once. I had a fleet of 45 powerful-for-size starships that could have turned the tide in either direction. Our "negotiation" was a mix of RP and 'impending' PVP that took the heat off of an ally of mine while simultaneously allowing another faction to back off peacefully and save face before potentially biting off more than they could chew. Could we have attacked and beaten them? No one knows, but it was an interesting twist nonetheless.

Regarding - "Moveable Sand"; We have people building their own quests, interactive environments, "mini-games" and actual logic-based computers within StarMade. Some of the best multi-player/sandbox experiences I've had in this game had absolutely nothing to do with PVP. Why is it that in a game with such vast possibilities, so many players see - "sit at home base and build stuff" and "I'm bored, I'll go kill people..." as the only two ways to play this game?

 

[Lecic]

Regarding - "Moveable Sand"; We have people building their own quests, interactive environments, "mini-games" and actual logic-based computers within StarMade. Some of the best multi-player/sandbox experiences I've had in this game had absolutely nothing to do with PVP. Why is it that in a game with such vast possibilities, so many players see - "sit at home base and build stuff" and "I'm bored, I'll go kill people..." as the only two ways to play this game?

Really? You're going to equate logic games to massive empire vs empire warfare? You're going to equate "lol im bored any1 want 2 fite???" to galactic conquest? Come on, you and I both know they're not the same things.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Really? You're going to equate logic games to massive empire vs empire warfare? You're going to equate "lol im bored any1 want 2 fite???" to galactic conquest? Come on, you and I both know they're not the same things.

If you insist; Sure I'll compare them.

- Logic games push the boundaries of one aspect of building in StarMade to their limits, while empire vs empire warfare is usually just a bunch of trigger happy players who want something to justify their aggressive tendencies but don't have what it takes to play alone.

- "Lol I'm bored, want 2 fight" is a player who can't do anything but pick fights. Galactic conquest is when that player and his friends feel the need to shit on everyone else's game. And for what? to add to your collection of stars and strip mined planets?

That's the problem with PVP junkies. You refuse to even CONSIDER the thoughts and wishes of other players so long as you get your cheap thrills and assert your need for validation over the rest of the player base regardless of whether they want to deal with you or not. News flash; some of us have better things to do with our time than pick fights "just because". Some of us do not naturally equate "multi-player" with "I want to kill other players."

Like I said; I tried to be impartial because I see some merit on both sides. I'm trying my best to show you some courtesy because you're a key forum contributor but your position on this topic comes off as extremist, selfish and extremely closed-minded. I highly recommend that you take the time to assess why you think a play style that is not welcoming to a large portion of the Starmade fan base should be the norm.

 

[Lecic]

- Logic games push the boundaries of one aspect of building in StarMade to their limits, while empire vs empire warfare pushes the boundaries of combat effective fleet composition and pushed efficient system design to the max

Fixed that for ya bud.

You'd think someone who builds so many combat ships wouldn't make such a ridiculous strawman, but here we are.

That's the problem with PVP junkies. You refuse to even CONSIDER the thoughts and wishes of other players so long as you get your cheap thrills and assert your need for validation over the rest of the player base regardless of whether they want to deal with you or not. News flash; some of us have better things to do with our time than pick fights "just because". Some of us do not naturally equate "multi-player" with "I want to kill other players."

Uh, sorry, but if your goal in multiplayer isn't "be good at X," whether that's in ships sold or credits earned through trading or players killed or systems captured, what are you playing for? The chat window? You might as well just get an IRC overlay program and play single player.

That's the problem with RP and PvE players, they want to destroy PvP so they can live in their little hugboxes without needing to interact with the rest of the server except for the chat window, when they could do the same by just playing single player and having a chat program, or by hosting their own PvE/agreed duel only servers. Hell, if it's specifically players in a PvP server you want to talk with and don't want to participate yourself, there are server wrapper plugins for that! GenX has a web chat function, for example. Your presence on these servers is completely unnecessary. You can talk with all your buddies who do PvP without ruining it.

I highly recommend that you take the time to assess why you think a play style that is not welcoming to a large portion of the Starmade fan base should be the norm.

Yeah, I bet that's really what most skub players play the game for- shitposting in chat while effectively playing single player.
Get out of your bubble and realize that the reason most people play Starmade is for the same reason they play Rust or Unturned or any other sandbox PvP game- the battling. The rest of the game is the backbone that gives those battles their real depth and impact over a simple deathmatch game, where there are no resources or bases and territory, and death doesn't matter.
The forums are not the majority of players. They are the real "vocal minority" so many RP/PvE players claim that PvPers are. Most people who play the game play for battling. Those that do not almost all either play single player, on build servers/hybrid build account servers, or on PvE servers.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Fixed that for ya bud.

You'd think someone who builds so many combat ships wouldn't make such a ridiculous strawman, but here we are.

Uh, sorry, but if your goal in multiplayer isn't "be good at X," whether that's in ships sold or credits earned through trading or players killed or systems captured, what are you playing for? The chat window? You might as well just get an IRC overlay program and play single player.

That's the problem with RP and PvE players, they want to destroy PvP so they can live in their little hugboxes without needing to interact with the rest of the server except for the chat window, when they could do the same by just playing single player and having a chat program, or by hosting their own PvE/agreed duel only servers. Hell, if it's specifically players in a PvP server you want to talk with and don't want to participate yourself, there are server wrapper plugins for that! GenX has a web chat function, for example. Your presence on these servers is completely unnecessary. You can talk with all your buddies who do PvP without ruining it.

Yeah, I bet that's really what most skub players play the game for- shitposting in chat while effectively playing single player.
Get out of your bubble and realize that the reason most people play Starmade is for the same reason they play Rust or Unturned or any other sandbox PvP game- the battling. The rest of the game is the backbone that gives those battles their real depth and impact over a simple deathmatch game, where there are no resources or bases and territory, and death doesn't matter.
The forums are not the majority of players. They are the real "vocal minority" so many RP/PvE players claim that PvPers are. Most people who play the game play for battling. Those that do not almost all either play single player, on build servers/hybrid build account servers, or on PvE servers.

Nice try but the joke is; like many other Non-PVPers, I don't care ruining or saving PVP. I can honestly take it or leave it. On the other hand, you don't get to decide how I choose to play the game. So you can go home and worry who's trying to blockade your homebase and torch your ships and I'll go find one of the MANY other things to do in StarMade besides shit on other people's gaming experience.

Also, regarding my "combat ships"; Most of the original Star Axis ships are modified civilian transports designed with exploration, mining, trading and PVE in mind.

Then I started playing multi-player and ran into a few people wanting to fight. ...just because. And while I'm flying around in ships like these, People show up with an Imperial Star Destroyer and fire nukes at my base.

Heaven forbid, I actually construct an armed fleet and put PVP grade shields and weapons on them to ward off all you trigger happy wannabe emperors...

Spoiler: You can have this back now.

[doublepost=1502850596,1502850128][/doublepost]Also, regarding your little "hugbox" comment. If you are truly convinced that the only way to interact with other players in StarMade is to fight them, then you really don't have any clue what this game is really about.

 

[apelsinsaft]

Most people who play the game play for battling.

Source?

 

[Ithirahad]

The forums are not the majority of players. They are the real "vocal minority" so many RP/PvE players claim that PvPers are. Most people who play the game play for battling. Those that do not almost all either play single player, on build servers/hybrid build account servers, or on PvE servers.

Just out of curiosity, where's this 'statistic' come from? Last night I checked the server list and Light vs. Dark was on top, but that was pretty much the first time ever. Before that, The Sentinel Alliance (which doesn't even allow non-consensual PVP) was the only server that consistently kept above 10-15 players or so.

 

[Edymnion]

Source?

I don't have one for Starmade, but I can provide source data for large online games in general, namely WoW:
US Realm Pop

Roughly 2/3rds of the entire population is on PvE servers.

Given how large WoW is (still), I'd say that is a very good general indicator that given the option between playing a game involving combat either with or without mandatory PvP, most players pick PvE.

 

[Edymnion]

Edymnion and others, without capacity for free pvp the imperialist mode does not make sense, atleast for a Multiplayer server.

Then I have to say this bluntly:

If running people off the server is an integral part of Imperialist Mode, then is that mode something we should have in the first place?

Either we need to find a way to make it work without wiping each other out, and support that method with gameplay mechanics (which likely won't happen because every time anyone tries to do that, the same people go into hysterics and shout them down for even attempting it), or we need to scrap the idea entirely.

A model that revolves on driving away your customers is *NOT* a good one.

 

[Lecic]

Source?

How about the fact that when this game has been the MOST populous was during periods of massive conflict? 2013 was a time of constant warfare between massive factions, and was also the time with the most players. Once those wars ended, those players migrated away for the most part, and we're stuck with our current situation, where ~200 odd players with an average consecutive player count of 75 with no server regularly topping 10 average players. If you ask most people who've stopped playing why, they'll tell you- PvP wasn't fun. Builders don't care about the balance and have mostly stuck around, ruining the real statistics balance.

I don't have one for Starmade, but I can provide source data for large online games in general, namely WoW:
US Realm Pop

Roughly 2/3rds of the entire population is on PvE servers.

Given how large WoW is (still), I'd say that is a very good general indicator that given the option between playing a game involving combat either with or without mandatory PvP, most players pick PvE.

Oh, yeah, an MMO RPG who's primary focus is on PvE quests and boss raids is definitely comparable to Starmade. Hey, let's take the statistics from Planetside 2 and see what percentage of players are participating in PvP and what percentage of players are doing PvE like racing or RPing at the warp gates? That certainly wouldn't be an unfair sample selection, right?

 

[Zyrr]

Then I have to say this bluntly:

If running people off the server is an integral part of Imperialist Mode, then is that mode something we should have in the first place?

Either we need to find a way to make it work without wiping each other out, and support that method with gameplay mechanics (which likely won't happen because every time anyone tries to do that, the same people go into hysterics and shout them down for even attempting it), or we need to scrap the idea entirely.

A model that revolves on driving away your customers is *NOT* a good one.

No one is inherently being run off the server, people are giving up when they don't need to because they aren't served a get out of jail free card on a silver platter.

 

[Edymnion]

No one is inherently being run off the server, people are giving up when they don't need to because they aren't served a get out of jail free card on a silver platter.

Same thing.

When it becomes more effort than it is worth to try and rebuild from nothing, people will leave. This is human nature. If they spend days, weeks, months building stuff up only to have it all evaporated overnight while they were sleeping, they're not going to go "Huh, well I need to tuck tail, run away, and rebuild!", they go "Screw this" and leave.