Anyone think large scale warfare will happen in star base?
- Thread starter Mambosamba
- Start date
- Tags conflict pvp war warfrae
The issue is that radiation tech is also good for defense... The CCAP ship is permanently safe. Now FB is considering even allowing them into the belt with total safety. Those players will see you coming miles away with their radiation technology also, and hide in their God mode block. The game has sooo much safety mechanics. Even now on the moon, that holds the rarest ores. Pvp has no incentive. it has no impact on the market, except safe zones everywhere causing ore prices to drop to ridiculous prices because everyone is disgusting rich. I dont count on any meaningful pvp stuff. it might be organized for shits. But, thats the extent of it.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 576
The safe zones are definitely out of hand. As are the safety mechanics. Its just making everyone unhappy. I get its early on, but we went from one safe zone for all and then station safe zones, to safe zone ships, safe zone moon cities, safe zone gates. Its rather disgusting.
All of the feature creep has been in the general direction of playing without having to interact with players of different play styles.
As I keep saying, capital ships are a terrible mechanic, and the wrong direction. All of this effort and time has been spent on a mechanic to avoid mechanics that aren't even in the game yet, and mechanics that really should have been done differently. The warp drives could have been put on regular ships, as has been proposed constantly. There are ways to have ship detection that depends only on server side information, giving players extended detection range.
Hell, we're stuck to 1 km radial spaces for visual ID. The priority should have been detection mechanics and making sure stations work properly.
We're getting capital ships that use mechanics that stations have that still don't work properly! Like... wtf?
Gah, I could rant for a long long time about capital ships and the problems with the feature creep that's happened.
All of the feature creep has been in the general direction of playing without having to interact with players of different play styles.
As I keep saying, capital ships are a terrible mechanic, and the wrong direction. All of this effort and time has been spent on a mechanic to avoid mechanics that aren't even in the game yet, and mechanics that really should have been done differently. The warp drives could have been put on regular ships, as has been proposed constantly. There are ways to have ship detection that depends only on server side information, giving players extended detection range.
Hell, we're stuck to 1 km radial spaces for visual ID. The priority should have been detection mechanics and making sure stations work properly.
We're getting capital ships that use mechanics that stations have that still don't work properly! Like... wtf?
Gah, I could rant for a long long time about capital ships and the problems with the feature creep that's happened.
yea.. and to make it worse, the devs are completely silent on all this. At least, in the forums. we dont know if they are like, "you guys just wait and see, itll all make sense later" or if they are like "oh my God!! freak out!! what are we doing??!!!" its hard to tell. some insight would be great. So that way we can respond exactly from what they are thinking.
Like, I am passionate about the economy, mining, building, and the player base that enjoys those things without wanting to die alot. i respect them, and have no wishes to see this game push them to the side. i stand with them. But, on their side, its like they are trying to take away this from us that want more freedom to venture out, and conquest without these barriers. Thats the way it looks in my perspective. i could be wrong. But, there has always been that crowd who just absolutely resents any sort of combat, and is absolutely stubborn inconsolably to the idea that both together would make a great game. I have literally faced this crowd's patronizing, and passive aggressiveness since day one that i joined the community. We gota be on the same side, because there has got to be some influence there.. that has got to be part of the reason the devs have taken this to the extreme. And its like the anti pvp community lack the insight to realize this will have a major impact on economy, and just content in general, not to mention the very life of the game.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 576
I'm not even an avid PvP'er. I love to PvP, but for me the challenge is in the ship design. I want to see my creations fighting and then improving on them. Its just too expensive now. I don't even want to pirate people. I want fleet battles. To lead my guys into a fun melee of space combat.
I wish the devs would interact in this thread and maybe give some insight on what kinda seems like madness, and counter to the vision i was described when I was in alpha. This is a heavily player interaction based game. Which is great! But that also means that to some extent the solo PvE'er needs to be left by the wayside more so than in most other games.
I wish the devs would interact in this thread and maybe give some insight on what kinda seems like madness, and counter to the vision i was described when I was in alpha. This is a heavily player interaction based game. Which is great! But that also means that to some extent the solo PvE'er needs to be left by the wayside more so than in most other games.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2020
- Messages
- 40
Fighters have a much lower radiation profile than Mining ships do, less engines and less over all components = less radiation. Mining lasers will give off radiation so this actually will make miners relatively easy to find. It's also confirmed you won't be able to completely hide engine radiation even with plating.
where did you hear this from? last i heard, the generators are the only thing that give off the radiation to be tracked. nothing else. So, i would guess it would depend on how many generator units you have with this idea. Also, last i heard from the devs, lukium is supposed to insulate it. Ive had that conversation with the developers. The mechanics are not in yet, and probably wont come till next year, unfortunately. But, where did you hear this from? the devs? we are still a ways off, so changing things around is a possibility. otherwise, i would just ignore it. fact check everything with devs.
People keep on saying this. "Once X or Y happens, people will stop grinding and have theatrical battles over territory!" No, they won't. There is literally no reason to fight over one 25km^3 patch of space over another 25km^3 patch of space. Resources, the thing humans have fought over from the beginning of time, are uniformly distributed over incredibly large areas. Not only that, they have an incredibly bad ROI compared to safe zone ore. If company A rolls up and sees company B mining kutonium (if kutonium or any rare ore was worthwhile to mine in the first place), no big deal, the path of least resistance is to just go 100km in a random direction and start up their own mining operation. It'll essentially be similiar density and similar ores and you'll never have to see company A again because they honestly cannot find you in such a vast area. Even if they did find you, any attack would be purely for sport and not for any kind of competition over anything that would give it a deeper meaning (like control over the space or resources) . All this work for stations, capital ships, moon bases, station sieging, none of it fixes this problem, it just gives us the ability to try out the mechanics if we ever get bored for no reason other than just to do it. In the meantime, scores of company vets will continue to stripmine the safezone at Origin (and any other of the hundred safe zones we'll have soon) with World Eaters and Crocs and make money at the fastest rate in the game in complete safety. The faucet will remain on and there will be no sink or drain. No one will leave or risk anything and there's nothing worth fighting over even if they did. That's the reality.
Addressing the reason to fight (i.e., the lack of one and lack of reason to leave the safe zone), to me seems like a prerequisite for cap ships, sieging, all of it. I don't care if that's rare ore clustering, making rare ores more valuable by making them be required in larger volumes during ship or station building, whatever, just some way to funnel people towards more common areas and present a compelling risk vs. reward equation and promote conflict. These changes would be subtle but there seems to be no interest in taking a swing. If done right, it has the cool side effect of providing an economic money sink as ships blow up more, building out a simple but easy to understand gameplay loop, and giving some context and meaning to these grand features they're putting so much of their effort into over the next 3 months. If tools to control and siege and fight over territory dropped in half an hour, we'd all be thinking the same thing for 99% of situations -- "so what?". It's like handing me nice knives and bowls to upgrade my dinners to a whole new level, but no one is hungry and they haven't been for weeks.
Beyond all that, if I had it my selfish way, small scale would get love before large scale, or at least be on the progress notes in parallel so we know it's in the pipe at the same time. Small scale is more accessible to everyone AND on a more regular basis without the requirement of an event-style gathering of people in large companies to siege. Give us radiation tracking and reasons to be outside the safe zone. Kids will run around for hours chasing and evading each other for profits and excitement. The tools for the largest scale conflict seems like it should sit on top of both of these things.
Addressing the reason to fight (i.e., the lack of one and lack of reason to leave the safe zone), to me seems like a prerequisite for cap ships, sieging, all of it. I don't care if that's rare ore clustering, making rare ores more valuable by making them be required in larger volumes during ship or station building, whatever, just some way to funnel people towards more common areas and present a compelling risk vs. reward equation and promote conflict. These changes would be subtle but there seems to be no interest in taking a swing. If done right, it has the cool side effect of providing an economic money sink as ships blow up more, building out a simple but easy to understand gameplay loop, and giving some context and meaning to these grand features they're putting so much of their effort into over the next 3 months. If tools to control and siege and fight over territory dropped in half an hour, we'd all be thinking the same thing for 99% of situations -- "so what?". It's like handing me nice knives and bowls to upgrade my dinners to a whole new level, but no one is hungry and they haven't been for weeks.
Beyond all that, if I had it my selfish way, small scale would get love before large scale, or at least be on the progress notes in parallel so we know it's in the pipe at the same time. Small scale is more accessible to everyone AND on a more regular basis without the requirement of an event-style gathering of people in large companies to siege. Give us radiation tracking and reasons to be outside the safe zone. Kids will run around for hours chasing and evading each other for profits and excitement. The tools for the largest scale conflict seems like it should sit on top of both of these things.
Last edited:
I saw that, and hazards. Just like radiation detection, they are on the roadmap, but I haven't seen that any of those things are actively being worked on. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
To restate though, to me it makes sense if you have those *important* areas like you say before you really need the tools with which to control and siege said areas. Because, again, allow me to siege and I'll be confused as to what we should be sieging each other over. I contended that the underlying motivation(s) for conflict were a kind of prerequisite for the sieging tools that will take another ~2-3 months to develop to really be used in an honest fashion in the first place.
It also doesn't change the fact that there is a broken risk/reward function right now with the state of rare ores being less valuable than safe zone ore. To me, that seems like a pretty big issue for numerous concerning reasons, not the least being that it actively discourages players interacting -- cooperating or fighting for ore and potentially being a contributing factor why you won't see the conflict (of the larger scale variety even) that this thread was asking about.
To restate though, to me it makes sense if you have those *important* areas like you say before you really need the tools with which to control and siege said areas. Because, again, allow me to siege and I'll be confused as to what we should be sieging each other over. I contended that the underlying motivation(s) for conflict were a kind of prerequisite for the sieging tools that will take another ~2-3 months to develop to really be used in an honest fashion in the first place.
It also doesn't change the fact that there is a broken risk/reward function right now with the state of rare ores being less valuable than safe zone ore. To me, that seems like a pretty big issue for numerous concerning reasons, not the least being that it actively discourages players interacting -- cooperating or fighting for ore and potentially being a contributing factor why you won't see the conflict (of the larger scale variety even) that this thread was asking about.
Last edited: