we need to talk about losing

[Neon_42]

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.

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.
[doublepost=1489598078,1489597873][/doublepost]

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.

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?

 

[Edymnion]

Can we create a system where role play like this is not griefing?

Sure, but you gotta limit it to NPC factions.

When your express goal is to screw another player so bad they have to leave the game entirely, then you are in the wrong. Every. Time.

 

[Neon_42]

Sure, but you gotta limit it to NPC factions.

When your express goal is to screw another player so bad they have to leave the game entirely, then you are in the wrong. Every. Time.

Agreed, but this still doesn't address the issue of galactic conquest. You cant conquer the galaxy if your galaxy is spotted with player factions. So we still need a solution where this kind of PvP works. A system of PvP where we don't have to screw players so badly they quit.

 

[Edymnion]

Agreed, but this still doesn't address the issue of galactic conquest. You cant conquer the galaxy if your galaxy is spotted with player factions. So we still need a solution where this kind of PvP works. A system of PvP where we don't have to screw players so badly they quit.

The only way "take over the universe" works is when you restart the game from scratch for everyone each time you play.

Civilization can do this, because you all start off on the same page. Starcraft can do it because you start a new map every time you play.

Persistent online multiplayer, it can't work. When the end goal is to kick everyone else off the server or force them to join you, there is no compensation that you can give to them. At that point, just play single player and conquer the galaxy there. When you go to multiplayer, you have to deal with other people, and "You're not allowed to play in my galaxy" isn't an option.

 

[Neon_42]

The only way "take over the universe" works is when you restart the game from scratch for everyone each time you play.

Civilization can do this, because you all start off on the same page. Starcraft can do it because you start a new map every time you play.

Persistent online multiplayer, it can't work. When the end goal is to kick everyone else off the server or force them to join you, there is no compensation that you can give to them. At that point, just play single player and conquer the galaxy there. When you go to multiplayer, you have to deal with other people, and "You're not allowed to play in my galaxy" isn't an option.

Thus the suggested tax, instead of permadeath. But that doesn't allow for new players, What about changing spawns so that people spawn on planets randomly across the universe? And say no closer than 5~10 star systems from another player?

 

[Edymnion]

Thus the suggested tax, instead of permadeath. But that doesn't allow for new players, What about changing spawns so that people spawn on planets randomly across the universe? And say no closer than 5~10 star systems from another player?

The tax and the like doesn't change the core problem with that play style though.

If it just gives them a tax and doesn't knock them out, then you can't take over the universe. The two are mutually exclusive, either you can take over the universe, or you can have other players. If you have one, you cannot have the other.

And since we're aiming for a multiplayer game, then the very idea of trying to support the galactic conquerer model is flawed from the start.

The easiest answer is to simply do what MMO's do. Have a PvP flag.

You must have your PvP flag enabled before anyone can attack you. If you attack someone else who is PvP enabled, it automatically flags you for X period of time. Flag is off by default.

 

[kulbolen]

If it just gives them a tax and doesn't knock them out, then you can't take over the universe. The two are mutually exclusive, either you can take over the universe, or you can have other players. If you have one, you cannot have the other.

perhaps a definition of "taking over" is in order here, because the way youre using it and the way i understand it are not the same. i imagine you know this, though, and are just using it in this manner because its convenient for your agenda.

 

[Edymnion]

perhaps a definition of "taking over" is in order here, because the way youre using it and the way i understand it are not the same. i imagine you know this, though, and are just using it in this manner because its convenient for your agenda.

No, I don't know this.

My definition of "taking over" = controlling space.

If an independent player has their own territory and is doing their own thing without you being the boss, then you have not taken over.

If your definition of "taking over" is different, then its just you pretending to be in charge while other players do whatever they want, then you "took over" the universe the instant you logged into it.

 

[kulbolen]

My definition of "taking over" = controlling space.

if you force a player to pay you tribute, and call you their master... that probably fits a lot of peoples definitions of "taking over." you dont have to wipe them out and make them quit.

that aside, id wager that even though many "galactic empires" goals may be to conquer a specific portion of space, not the entire universe. even the most ambitious dictators usually have a clue that some things are impossible.

 

[Edymnion]

if you force a player to pay you tribute, and call you their master...

I made a user icon for you. Seems to fit your style quite well.

 

[Raisinbat]

- Shield supply beams should not put the entity they're on into 'attack state', lowering regen. This would allow shield support drones/ships, lowering overall resource loss.

Hello exploit.

It doesn't need a bonus, it just AI able to utilize it; if you have 5 ships but only one being fired on, the other 4 are losing their shield regen; if they had shield supply beams they could help restore shield to the guy being shot at.

most games have an incentive to fight that can outweigh the cost of losing, giving the player at least enough incentive tofight to CONSIDER engaging.

Most games aren't PvP sandboxes

- 'Winning' party needs a reward for winning, instead of losing blocks/resources. Perhaps credits or transfer faction points or resources from losing faction to winning faction.

Time and effort put in to getting materials and building stuff far out weighs the rewards for losing .

How about throw away "consensual warfare" (what in the fuck) and make combat mandatory; if you have a station it gets attacked; your reward is to keep your station and the benefits that come with it, instead of trying to spoonfeed people rewards for combat; you shouldn't "reward" people for everything, you just make the rewards cheap.

This game needs resource sinks outside of building more ships;

One of the biggest issues in this game is the inability to lose.

Is spot on. The reason gigantism keeps happening is because players are constantly fed resources, and those resources don't leave, so your networth is almost always rising.

Also friendly reminder that if you make money a reward for everything but not resources you just introduce perpetual inflation to the ingame economy... Not smart.

And what if the peoples which enjoy PvP the most would post a how-to-enjoy-PvP tutorial?

 

[kulbolen]

Most games aren't PvP sandboxes

agreed, but im not sure how thats relevant. they still include pvp, and still incentivize winning, and starmade still has a clear problem with pvp and player motivations that could be (partially) solved by incentivizing winning.

im not sure how this clashes with any of your ideas though because i agree with basically everything you write.

 

[Raisinbat]

agreed, but im not sure how thats relevant. they still include pvp, and still incentivize winning, and starmade still has a clear problem with pvp and player motivations that could be (partially) solved by incentivizing winning.

Agreed, sorry my post is lazy.

The problem is in the sandbox your gains keep stacking together, like in 4x games, you keep growing and eventually someone has outgrown everyone else. Sandboxes like these function much better when your sources of income have upkeep requirements, such as defending them, and incurring losses, rather than just doing tasks and constantly getting fatter and fatter. Games that go the activity -> reward route ALWAYS have limits to how much you can gather, like mmos; you can't wear 50 steel plate mails in those games, but in starmade you CAN use infinite amounts of resources, no matter what they are, to gain more resources faster than before.

When you CAN do this in a sandbox, it's a singleplayer sandbox, like X3 or mount and blade, and reaching the point where you've outgrown everyone and can curbstomp your way from one of the map to the other is what it's all about.

 

[kulbolen]

ah yes, i think there should be all sorts of economic balancing maintenance costs, sinks, etc.

but i dont think those need to be mutually exclusive with incentives to win.

of course for any of this to matter at all, the game has to be less full of broken mechanics and exploits that render any sort of "economy" meaningless

 

[Dvaren]

Sure, but you gotta limit it to NPC factions.

When your express goal is to screw another player so bad they have to leave the game entirely, then you are in the wrong. Every. Time.

You are equating non consensual pvp with "screwing another player so bad they have to leave the game." They are not synonymous.

 

[NaStral]

Upkeep on vessels and stations (could be in credits or resources) would be a smart thing. The larger and more complex the object, the more upkeep needed. I would even extend this to storage. As odd as it sounds, if capsules were to be perishable this would encourage people to take initiative and use their ships to get out there and acquire/defend territory. Just spit balling here.

Ideally you would want a middle ground of some kind that favors vessels of modest means, perhaps 12-15k being the upper limit of low maintenance ships that wouldn't incur a terribly high upkeep and for every 1k after that, upkeep would have a .5% increase or something. This way, the newer folks can have some degree of time to get themselves up but the folks that want giant battleships will need to actually sacrifice for it. This way if a big faction lost the collective will to maintain their empire, it would decline and make room for upstarts. This would make a continuous cycle of rising and falling empires, which is pretty much the kind of space opera style stuff many of us want. Of course this all should be adjustable in the server configs to suit a particular community.

One of the major conflicts between the players seems to be the desire for permanence and safety vs the desire for action and change. Now I'm all for the latter personally and fully believe that players should work and fight for their safety and in doing so guarantee their presence so long as they have the means to do so.

Getting back to the whole losing thing. It should be set up to where losing is not something to be feared but embraced, it should be looked at as a new beginning and not an end. Some of this can be made manifest through careful alterations to the server from the admins end by adding things like scripted quests rewarding resources or events rewarding the same along with dozens of other things. It's very easy make an environment where it's easy to bounce back, even after a total loss. The last and most important half of this, are mental processes in the players head and how their ego handles the consequences of losing to another player (or NPC). That's something no one can solve but that individual player.

 

[NeonSturm]

IRL, military craft is high-maintenance. Just think how many peoples work on a aircraft carrier or how many crew are kept ready in a destroyer.
Luxury liners are also high-maintenance, but bulk-transporters are low.

Maybe we should make maintenance dependent on crew but require crew for military purposes if the ship shall be efficient?​

 

[Deserea]

You are equating non consensual pvp with "screwing another player so bad they have to leave the game." They are not synonymous.

but they do often go together. Not all the time of course, but they do.
Tis a reason i refuse to step foot into a pvp server again, at the same time however, i dont see the need for a flag, just be polite. If a ship isnt armed, and not harming you, why bother attacking it. just how i look at it.

IRL, military craft is high-maintenance. Just think how many peoples work on a aircraft carrier or how many crew are kept ready in a destroyer.
Luxury liners are also high-maintenance, but bulk-transporters are low.

​

Military craft are high maintenance(at least in the states) because they are stupidly designed, and we often dont have the time to do the work properly, which would lower the "high" maintenance aspect of them, all our work is rushed, so it doesnt last anywhere near as long as it would if done properly, or if we had proper manning on board.

IRL: most military ships(again in the states) only keep 1/6 of the crew on board at any time, less if the ship is larger, to prevent another pearl harbor situation(after working hours of course), and there is no need to have everyone there, 24/7.

it depends on the company the bulk transporter owns. ive seen very well taken care of transport ships, and some of the nastiest ships imaginable pulling into port daily.

 

[Crashmaster]

An unarmed ship can be seen as free mobile pre-processed resources. Like a fun valuable asteroid.

 

[Deserea]

An unarmed ship can be seen as free mobile pre-processed resources. Like a fun valuable asteroid.

I guess, but its just as fune as mining an asteroid, and id rather do that than attack an unable to defend itself ship.