This is the kind of analysis this thread is looking for. I mostly agree with your analysis. However in a game we don't need to teach the "war is harsh" lesson, this is a game after all. I do want to keep people playing rather than kicking them out if they loose. Homebase invulnerablilty does default to 100% loss prevention. I guess that works, but it feels very clunky. It isn't realistically motivated or motivated by lore but rather motivated by the fact that losing is so devastating. I wonder if we can strike ground between the two. A solution that allows for a better motivated mechanic. For now this works, and maybe if it works don't fix it, but it really does break a bit of the immersion. This thread was created to try and brainstorm something like that, but maybe it wasn't communicated so well.im probably the last person here who would have a personal problem with this. but theres some problems here... your logic makes no sense to me. you just used a realistic idea of how war and conflict works... to advocate a totally forced artificial loss prevention mechanic.
"Instead of blowing up a players works, instead if you reach the home base players could possibly levy a tax of some kind, maybe in faction points or resources. This would be much better than players blowing each other up and having someone rage quit. Of course if the tax goes unpaid then people would be free to destroy each other. A higher risk reward play."
you just said "war is harsh, man!" as a point while discussing your idea of "lets all play nice and not break each others shit, man!"
regardless of how silly i think that mentality is, heres my thoughts on it:
in wars, "losing" sides would only get taxed because theyre identified as the "losing" side. they have to suffer some loss to be the loser, with exception to scenarios where they just cow and exclaim defeat without a fight (strong faction threatening and taxing some noob faction)... that initial fight often removes the single most important, costly, creative piece of said losing sides inventory and is as likely to cause a "ragequit" as anything else.
aside from this, will go with my anecdotal evidence and say most starmade players DONT want to be exposed to forced wars and such, they want a glorified sp build server with a chatroom to feel connected. i personally love the idea of a hardcore pvp survival server, and to some extent we can already set this up with no homebase protections etc, as i said before... but in the default environment 100% loss prevention can already be achieved (aside from this latest updates massive undocking bugs) by simply using your homebase. you said it yourself, it can already be achieved. although im not sure why you said somewhat, because it is fully achieved, not somewhat achieved. but youre right, it makes them unconquerable... guess what? even without homebases, youre unconquerable.
starmade isnt real life; we dont have countries with millions of citizens to protect, on a static planet that we cant relocate. there is no threat you can mount against me that i cant just ignore by hiding or running. you cant hurt me unless i let you. this is part of the incentivize winning to risk losing idea. in an environment where you cant hurt me unless i let you, i have to be willing to expose myself. subjecting me to taxes instead of the loss of my station is not going to do it.
[doublepost=1489598078,1489597873][/doublepost]
part of the sandbox is being able to role play whatever you want. So if you want to build the Galactic Empire? That would surely require you subjugating more than one player. What if you want to be a space pirate? I've never heard of a pirate that asks people if they want their ship taken over. This would amount to a lot of non consensual PvPing. Can we create a system where role play like this is not griefing?Well here's an idea, how about you ask?
"Hey, wanna do some PvP?" "Sure, sounds like fun!" = Go have fun.
"Hey, wanna do some PvP?" "No thanks, I only have a mining ship right now" = Don't attack.
Its really that simple. If the other person wants to play that aspect of the game with you, they will tell you. If they don't want to, then you shouldn't be forcing them. It takes you all of 30 seconds.