we need to talk about losing

[NeonSturm]

f a ship isnt armed, and not harming you, why bother attacking it. just how i look at it.

Because you are bored?

If 1.Time/Awareness/Thoughts is inverse to 2.Mass/KineticEnergy/Existence,
I can increase my 1.thoughts by removing your 2.mass/existence of your ship.

I know taking away is evil Maybe we can call these peoples "hu·man·s"?
But some cannot grow peacefully Maybe we can call these peoples "de·mon·s"?​

 

[Edymnion]

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

Congratulations, you're not an asshole.

 

[Dvaren]

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

By definition, would not a ship unable to defend itself be a relatively poor source of resources?

 

[MacThule]

What ways can we mitigate the losing factor so that people don't rage quit. Station invulnerability does this somewhat, but it creates a very weird dynamic in the game in a PvP sense where you can't be conquered.

1. Make it 110% clear to every new player that they must do their designing in SP Creative, and then spawn their creations into MP.
2. Turn off invulnerability & x12 mining bonus in MP, have each player spawn at a random shop instead of always at 2 2 2, and make losing a part of life - if you can't lose, it isn't a game.


I like this thread, BTW, so don't take my curtness wrongly please. I've never played a game where people didn't rage quit - even games where no one dies ever, so I think the goal might be better set at QQ reduction rather than elimination. I've played over ten thousand of rounds of SC2 and watched my base completely wrekt in almost half of those, and 90% of the times when I QQ'd it was about me and my emotional state, not SC2 (although occasionally, rarely, I was legitimately pissed about some aspect of the meta).


In a game where losing is guaranteed as a frequent outcome, losing won't cause excessive QQ. Because it's expected.

The QQ issue we face in MP here is, I believe, about player expectations of relative degrees of "safety" being shattered by the game's real inability to assure that even with insane HB invulnerability.


Your second suggestion could work very well as a specific game mode intended for those who faint at the sight of blood with invulnerability turned on. Capture the flag mode or something.

And I 100% agree that shipyards need to be made to work extremely quickly and easily both at spawning AND repairing ships. That is completely on point.
[doublepost=1490140506,1490140122][/doublepost]

We are supposed to have five: Evasion by size, effect-hardening of shields/armour, outranging/running.

"Supposed to" being a key issue here.

Evasion & range are hopelessly crippled by lag at combat sizes (ie, the sizes players in MP actually want their ships at before agreeing to leave their perma-safe HBs). If there were intelligent size caps, they would be powerful balances; I've flown microships repeatedly around hostile bases and ships bristling with turrets while missiles uselessly chased me, so it's in the meta for sure, but only so long as you aren't near any planets or any large fleets or titans or overdocked giant HBs, because then the lag makes it so you only THOUGHT you were evading, and range is hopeless because you can't even pretend to lead a target that stutters into and out of reality.

 

[kulbolen]

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

subjective. i find fighting ships more fun than mining asteroids. i usually avod attacking defenseless ships without some provocation, but its still more fun to me than mining.

Congratulations, you're not an asshole.

subjective; he may only avoid it because its not fun to him, not because hes nice...you dont know. he also may do other asshole things... you dont know.

The QQ issue we face in MP here is, I believe, about player expectations of relative degrees of "safety" being shattered by the game's real inability to assure that

half true; the game provides many means of full protection. its just that most players expect it to be the default, or an inherent mechanic that they dont need to work to achieve. the games also super broken and buggy and breaks its own rules constantly; this is quite frustrating.
[doublepost=1490142623,1490142589][/doublepost]

By definition, would not a ship unable to defend itself be a relatively poor source of resources?

this makes no sense at all.

 

[El_Shanta]

Definitely seconded on ship repairs, time spent screwing around with shipyards, blueprints and inventories on a loss is lame
not so much the time just the clickiness & involvement, it's, ugh

Protected sectors are all well and good (unless i can just pay for them!) but some kind of galaxy wide force/sensor that cockblocks your weapons on contact if you don't first RP up a reason for firing on somebody & make agreements. Who? Why? How? etc, call me a stickler but i like my universe to make sense at some fundamental level

 

[robertkor]

just my 2 cents, dont fly it if you cant afford to lose it, every ship ive ever built and lost in pvp was never a problem nor did i get butthurt over it. its part of the game and honestly having a ship get beat down gives you perspective into the builds of other people, and helps you improve your own builds.

dont put all your eggs in one basket, save blueprints often so you dont lose any super amazing creations and make sure that if you lose a fight you do enough damage to make the winning party's victory as costly as possible.

 

[Daro_Khan]

Don't fly what you cant afford to lose.

Rewards for conquest shall most likely come as the game gets more updates.

Also There really isnt a reward for fighting, more so protecting your space and resources. and not ding to much to make ur home base vulnerable to attack.

Game isn't done yet so anything else that adds to this is to wait and see