some ideas for the game

[Iron Maiden]

I was specifically referring to the map/autopilot thing you mentioned. It's essentially just currently extant navigational systems with extra steps. Would it be worth the time and effort to design and set up at the moment? Debatable, but it is technically possible as far as I'm aware.


You DO know this game is literally unfinished, right? As in it is currently being developed, and will likely continue to be developed for years to come? Which is something the devs have very clearly and openly stated? One of the first things you see on the steam store page is "Starbase launches into early access in a clear alpha state", so I don't understand how this isn't blatantly obvious to people.

Of course it's empty and boring right now, half the fundamental mechanics aren't even fully implemented into the game yet. It'd be valid to complain about the rate of development or that it should've stayed in CA longer or something, but complaining about the current state of the game as if it's an intentional design choice is like complaining that a house is unlivable before the construction workers have even put up the walls. Hell, some of what you described has ALREADY been stated to be planned features (to greater or lesser extents).

I'd much rather FB focus on properly developing the game for the long term, than see them waste time and resources trying to convince people this isn't an open alpha. At this point they'd just be putting lipstick on a pig.


I don't think you need any greater explanation than people are whiny and don't read available information before schizoposting in the game suggestions.

yes I know the game is unfinished I even said it in the exact same post...

 

[Iron Maiden]

someone voicing their opinion and suggestion to a game in development and a vast majority saying similar things is not being whiny at all.. if the majority are waiting for a car and a small fraction is wanting a bike why in the world would it make sense from a business standpoint to say no to both and instead make a unicycle and then no ones buying. customers need to voice their feedback and suggestions so the devs can know what their customers want to play and purchase.

If we had 1-10 guys extremely active in the forums only and they want the game to be nothing but a point a to point b mining simulation forever and they are the only ones ever sharing their ideas the devs will assume their fanbase wants that and form a game based on that. while the vast majority dont play it still and they get confused and think "thats weird we did what everyone was asking even why do we only have 10 players" but had the vast majority shared what they want to see then they all have a similar theme the devs may see that and take it into consideration. unless those 10 players drown their voices out or harrass them to get what they want. and prevent the devs from seeing their ideas. For example I made this exact post months ago and deleted it shortly after.

If I see nothing but harrassment or my ideas bad or they already have that in the game or are you stupid its early access or getting lumped in with others who apparently share similar ideas and are called whiny for it. eventually I say **** it and assume no one wants it in the game because the loud minority make it their mission to push others down and band together to stop any form of ideas and the silent majority may post their ideas every now and then only to remove them or give up because of these 10 people. but the majority of the silent majority arent going to come to forums and dont care if the game succeeds or not because they are just going to play or find a different game. which is why one game may have no players and others may have tens or hundreds of thousands of players sometimes millions.

Ark was in early access too and had a very large playerbase still.
Valheim was in early access too and broke its own records weekly and kept getting more and more players at all times.

theres many other examples but a game being early access or still in development isnt a valid excuse for why people arent playing. there is always a reason, Ark was so buggy it became a meme, you would lose everything you worked hours to tame to random bugs and all your stuff to random bugs. but people still kept playing.

ive already stated the reason for my suggestions as ways to spark ideas for other players, or the devs or a list of things that I know will be a huge hit based on many other games and their hype and feedback from players, whether random or I played with. "oh that would be so cool if they did this" over and over but they dont suggest it to the devs they wait and see a game as something they dont care if it succeeds or not, if it fails they hop to the next game if it succeeds cool someone else suggested what they wanted to see.

but whatever, I am like those who will just find a new game if this one fails. just offering my suggestions and feedback based on patterns ive noticed with other games and feedback from real players ive personally played with ingame or others suggestions throughout the years. if this game turns into a star citizen where I paid 40$ "donation" and literally never played it then I guess it is what it is. Heres to hoping the devs will see mine and others suggestions and take them into consideration.

 

[Cavilier210]

Its almost like a wave of people saw how barren the game is and thought killing something would be fun.

Imagine, independent thought coming to the same conclusion.. As vets of the community we not only alienate them, we remove their actual existence.

I have to say, the devs put in 2 systems clamored for by people who didn't play the game, and both those systems fell flat on their faces. But they had popular support. The potential customer is a poor decider of what to add to a product. Every game offers this NPC PvE seal clubbing fun for all ages. It always leads to the same whining about lack of content, the devs not making things fast enough, etc. Here we have a game missing core systems for basic player interaction, but damn, we better throw in dungeons and bots we can stroke our ego's to!

Seriously. PvE content, and NPC's are always a losing proposition. Give people a reason to play other than farming bots, and farming asteroids, and perhaps things may turn around. But I can do both in Eve.

I'm going to focus on player tools. To, ya know, create a dynamic player driven universe. Actually driven by the players. Not dev fiat. Much as I like the devs, I like their primary selling point more, and thats player agency.

 

[Cavilier210]

I don't think you need any greater explanation than people are whiny and don't read available information before schizoposting in the game suggestions.

Ya. I kinda wish he would have just edited his post instead of replied to the same post 3 times.

 

[Recatek]

I have to say, the devs put in 2 systems clamored for by people who didn't play the game, and both those systems fell flat on their faces.

So the game shouldn't add game-driven content because of... EBM? Is that what I'm supposed to take from this?

The potential customer is a poor decider of what to add to a product.

Starbase is dead unless it attracts people who aren't currently playing. The current player numbers are dead game numbers. By definition, the only way to fix that is to convert potential customers into players. Naturally, that requires adding features that will cater to people who aren't currently playing.

Every game offers this NPC PvE seal clubbing fun for all ages.

Not sure I follow what's being said here. In PvP MMOs like this, "seal clubbing" typically refers to advanced players killing/farming new players in PvP, often to the point of forcing them out of the game entirely. It usually has nothing to do with PvE, unless there's something I'm missing.

It always leads to the same whining about lack of content, the devs not making things fast enough, etc.

The game already has no world content, and people already complain about the devs not making things fast enough. It can't get any worse from here.

Here we have a game missing core systems for basic player interaction

Nobody is suggesting that FB shouldn't also add these. If anything, the best way to improve interaction is to add additional reasons to interact.

we better throw in dungeons and bots we can stroke our ego's to!

How is PvE an ego thing? If anything, PvP is far more ego-driven than PvE is, since PvP is an explicitly competitive activity.

PvE content, and NPC's are always a losing proposition.

This is contradicted by the existence of many very popular and successful games that offer it as a gameplay path.

Give people a reason to play other than farming bots, and farming asteroids, and perhaps things may turn around.

Farming bots isn't currently a thing. There certainly should be things to do besides farming asteroids. PvE (actual PvE) and other game-driven content are a great way to provide that, and there's clearly significant demand for it, even if you're convinced they're all some forum alt conspiracy or whatever.

 

[Cavilier210]

Farming bots isn't currently a thing. There certainly should be things to do besides farming asteroids. PvE (actual PvE) and other game-driven content are a great way to provide that, and there's clearly significant demand for it, even if you're convinced they're all some forum alt conspiracy or whatever.

Nope. Just a huge mentality that the only things games should do and can do is things they have done elsewhere. It's a mass mentality of only eating chocolate ice cream and demanding chocolate ice cream be served with all meals because you liked chocolate ice cream in another situation. Strawberry ice cream obviously can't exist. And if it does, it must include chocolate ice cream. Tis silly. I see you all as silly.

 

[Seat-Weld]

Starbase is dead unless it attracts people who aren't currently playing. The current player numbers are dead game numbers. By definition, the only way to fix that is to convert potential customers into players. Naturally, that requires adding features that will cater to people who aren't currently playing.

Frozenbyte has already stated that active player count isn't a pressing concern at the moment, which I think is a reasonable stance. The worst thing they could do going forward is waste time and resources fretting over the player count of what is so clearly an unfinished product. If the game were finished according to their exact vision and still had these numbers? Absolutely a cause for concern. As it currently stands though this slump isn't anything to activate crisis mode over (It's arguably expected).

An issue I've repeatedly seen in EA games are devs shortsightedly throwing in content to attract players, rather than focus on the core aspects of the game that clearly need to be improved/fixed/implemented. Obviously I'm not trying to imply you should NEVER listen to what your players want, but at the current moment it's very much a "putting the cart before the horse" thing. Worrying about NPCs or PvE content before we even have proper stations or companies in the game is silly. Because focusing on PvE content at this point in development is a bandaid solution, it wouldn't change the fact all of the aforementioned stuff was still unfinished or missing.

Nobody is suggesting that FB shouldn't also add these. If anything, the best way to improve interaction is to add additional reasons to interact.

I think a lot of people's gripe (or at least my own) is that so many people loudly complain about the lack of PvE content as if it is some magic bullet that will instantly fix the game. The biggest "issue" with Starbase is that it's unfinished: There are multiple systems and features that are not implemented into the game yet, whose existence/success are what the core gameplay loop hinges upon. Will these features ultimately be enough? I don't know, because we haven't really seen them in practice yet. Maybe they'll provide plenty of enjoyable content once they're in our hands, maybe people will still find them lacking and remain convinced that NPCs are necessary. At this point it's purely conjecture.

Don't get me wrong: It's completely fair to express an interest in PvE content to the devs, even just in a broad conceptual sense. The problem is that so many of these posts are just rambling walls of text with no real consideration of if what they're suggesting is even possible on a technical level, let alone if it's congruent with the overall direction of the game. I can't imagine it's very helpful feedback, and just makes it look like the more vocal proponents of PvE barely understand the game they're making suggestions for.

 

[Recatek]

Nope. Just a huge mentality that the only things games should do and can do is things they have done elsewhere.

Learning from other games is important. Starbase doesn't exist in a vacuum. It shares elements with many other games, and other games have learned lessons from the process that Starbase could benefit from. Players also move between games and carry expectations between them, like having fun things to do in the world (which Starbase doesn't have).

It's a mass mentality of only eating chocolate ice cream and demanding chocolate ice cream be served with all meals because you liked chocolate ice cream in another situation. Strawberry ice cream obviously can't exist. And if it does, it must include chocolate ice cream.

Frozenbyte has already stated that active player count isn't a pressing concern at the moment, which I think is a reasonable stance. The worst thing they could do going forward is waste time and resources fretting over the player count of what is so clearly an unfinished product. If the game were finished according to their exact vision and still had these numbers? Absolutely a cause for concern. As it currently stands though this slump isn't anything to activate crisis mode over (It's arguably expected).

The game's vision is far more fluid than you're suggesting here. It has to be, because right now it isn't working. Starbase's launch performance was very bad. Yes, the game is unfinished, but Frozenbyte felt at least confident enough in the game at the time to start taking money for it. Moving forward, the way a game goes from "unfinished" to "finished" is by adding and fixing things -- it isn't a magic process. It can also fail, and there's still a strong likelihood that Starbase will never recover. Games fail all the time, even games from scrappy and beloved and well funded indie darlings. The only way to recover from Starbase's current position into a functional massively multiplayer game is to add players before the funding runway runs out (which will eventually happen, since that's how money works).

All we know of Starbase's vision, beyond vague and unreliable discord quotes, is the game's roadmap. I don't believe those features alone are likely to bring the game back up to sustainably healthy player numbers. The only thing that lapsed players seem remotely excited about coming back for is sieges, and those won't (and shouldn't) be a daily activity. After this roadmap completes, additional features will need to be added to the game, and there is very little public information about what the second roadmap will look like. Suggestions like adding game-driven world content are specifically aiming for that second roadmap. This is a common and popular request, and Frozenbyte is receptive to the idea as a second-roadmap item. Frozenbyte doesn't actually seem to have a concrete game plan/vision to get to 1.0, and that's why this feedback is important.

I think a lot of people's gripe (or at least my own) is that so many people loudly complain about the lack of PvE content as if it is some magic bullet that will instantly fix the game.

It would certainly make the game world interesting. Right now it very much isn't, unless you really like rocks and gas.

The biggest "issue" with Starbase is that it's unfinished: There are multiple systems and features that are not implemented into the game yet, whose existence/success are what the core gameplay loop hinges upon.

Only if you have faith that the items on the current roadmap will bring the game into a sustainably healthy state. Beyond sieges, the other major roadmap systems, like atmospheric pumps and capital ships, just double down on the existing mining and building pillars that players have already walked away from. If you're bored of just mining and building (and clearly, a large percentage of the game's initial players are), then the game adding more mining and more building probably isn't a very enticing thing to return for. The reason game-driven content and PvE are popular suggestions is that they add new pillars to the game, namely exploration and self-sustaining combat, that players want to participate in in the world. These are good ideas for growing the playerbase because they broaden the audience of the game. They provide new and interesting activities for players that currently don't have any real form of. Starbase won't recover just by digging in on its existing building/mining systems.

Maybe they'll provide plenty of enjoyable content once they're in our hands, maybe people will still find them lacking and remain convinced that NPCs are necessary. At this point it's purely conjecture.

The game world was boring and lifeless in CA, and people got bored and left. The game world is still boring and lifeless in EA, and people got bored and left. Are we going to keep kicking the can down the road and hoping that players will put in the charity work to fix the game's problems, or is the game actually going to start providing things for players to do, and reasons to stick around in the world? I'm not suggesting that FB cancel the current roadmap and start on this immediately, but once the current roadmap is nearing completion, I absolutely believe we should see some game-driven/PvE content on the next one.

Don't get me wrong: It's completely fair to express an interest in PvE content to the devs, even just in a broad conceptual sense. The problem is that so many of these posts are just rambling walls of text with no real consideration of if what they're suggesting is even possible on a technical level, let alone if it's congruent with the overall direction of the game. I can't imagine it's very helpful feedback, and just makes it look like the more vocal proponents of PvE barely understand the game they're making suggestions for.

Then allow me to direct you to mine: Rogue Drones, Progenitor Mines. These are pragmatic suggestions that build on existing foundations within the game and leave room for future expansion while still being practical in the short term.

 

[Cavilier210]

Recatek, these are pragmatic in your opinion. They're an incredible departure from FB's own PR in reality.

 

[Recatek]

Recatek, these are pragmatic in your opinion. They're an incredible departure from FB's own PR in reality.

Which reality? FB is openly receptive to the idea, and has said so on numerous occasions. The remaining question is the exact manner of execution.

 

[Cavilier210]

Them being open to departure makes it no less a departure. I also saw their openness on the subject. Nothing about it leads me to believe that they want dungeons, mobs, and so on.

 

[Recatek]

Them being open to departure makes it no less a departure. I also saw their openness on the subject. Nothing about it leads me to believe that they want dungeons, mobs, and so on.

Nobody's holding them prisoner and forcing them to consider the idea. They want what's good for the game, and this is a very popular request for a reason. It would drive a lot of player population and interest, including an increase in activity for player-driven content, as it does in other games. There's also nothing in the game's marketing that explicitly precludes the addition of more game-driven content. If anything, the presentation of exploration as a core game pillar explicitly suggests it in order to have interesting things to explore for. A boring world is not appealing to explorers.

 

[Iron Maiden]

Nope. Just a huge mentality that the only things games should do and can do is things they have done elsewhere. It's a mass mentality of only eating chocolate ice cream and demanding chocolate ice cream be served with all meals because you liked chocolate ice cream in another situation. Strawberry ice cream obviously can't exist. And if it does, it must include chocolate ice cream. Tis silly. I see you all as silly.

Tuesday at 6:11 PM
#12
thats kinda my point on it anyways and why im suggesting this to the devs as things I know many would like to play.

majority of gameplay even without my suggestions and as is would be grinding money/building ship and mining. which all dont even need other players around. Why not make a ton of the majority of the game enjoyable with gameplay loops and fun stuff/progression and a playstyle for many different players in the professions.
some people might like exploration,
others may like salvaging
others may like bounty hunting.
others may like hunting or fishing.
others may like secret bunkers with a droid/clone or mixed army to wage wars or defend.
others may like building really cool paradise bases
others may like building fully operation war bases
others may like mining for resources
others may like woodcutting
others may like making a fully functional clone/droid industrial base (using mining/woodcutting and other stuff)
others may like making ships to sell to people with a lot of players or a droid/clone army they can sell the clones and not lose the dna for certain types they have that people want.

others may like the archeology and paleontology side of things discovering things and possibly a rare dna to recreate a creature or sell ancient tech
others may like cultivation of farm lands and a full npc droid/clone industrial set up for it.
others may like underwater secret bases
others may like making a base inside a volcano
others may like a base in the trees (like ewoks/wookies)

others may like engineering and designing their own droids, whether humanoid or purely animal adding different tiers of weapons/or creative designs they can think of then selling them. engineering their ships (like in the game currently) engineering different techs and machinery such as automation/industrial or railguns. hell they could even design a giant animal type machine with multiple railguns on its back that people can stand on. or war machines for land, sea, space. they could design whatever they want with whatever they want if it with their creativity. war, industrial or whatever other machinery you can think of.

others may like terraforming a micro moon into something incredible, or turn the perfect ocean planet into a tundra, or a lava planet into a ocean planet. or an ocean planet making a single massive mountain and then having a hangar in its side as it soars above the water. then carving tunnels out within leading to secret bases and eventually on the ocean floor a tunnel leading from the mountain to a dome type underwater branches with whatever they want.

and many people will likely want to do multiple or all of these. some may hate some while loving others. the point is to have many options for many different types of people. this will make a vast type of playerbase and full economy. and will make those who love some things be able to grind and do it (enjoyably not annoying/boring type grind) to make it a full profession increasing everything about it for them.
like maybe a fisherman profession will be rare among the playerbase and so the entire games players will seek after some legendary materials/creatures youve caught and etc. but for each one. maybe mining will be the most common one to have people maxed out in professions. the idea is to make professions feel like a profession and really for those who actually enjoy the skill and make it their lifestyle basically, we dont want someone to just drop in a couple days and do a skill he hates to unlock it so he can have all these perks for it. we would want it to be those who truly love doing that skill so it comes naturally but will take a long time. We dont want 1 player to have all the skills maxed and hate them all but have them just for the content or just unlocking it to feel like he beat the game. instead it would be better to let those who love the skill and their professions sell to these people so they can do the skills they enjoy.

maybe someone only enjoys woodcutting, why? who knows maybe they irl used to be a logger and got injured and love logging but cant anymore. who knows but they only like logging, they hate every other skill. they have logged so much their passive xp as they played they could have maxed woodcutting 7 times over but they enjoyed it the entire time and use the money/trade resources from that to buy or fund anything else they need. maybe they buy clones/droids who are pack mules and industrial to make a fully operation timber farm on their forest micro moon. they supply all kinds of wood of different tiers and rarities and make their living on that. they then buy a ship or custom order one through people theyve met they know are good in those fields. and they never touch another skill.

thats the concept im trying to propose, where its not a game of you have to do everything (but if you enjoy it all you can for sure)

 

[Cavilier210]

It's a popular request because it's what other games do. Being a copycat does no one any favors. people come here with expectations. But that's their problem. FB's job is to manage expectations. Which they've done by saying that is not the defining segment of the game, and they wish to minimize it as much as possible. For many reasons. Instead they want the game player driven, with player investment and enjoyment. Where the stories are made by players, not them. Where they give the tools and we do all the awesome things.

Frankly I see the push for NPC's and extravagant automation as an insult and an emulation of mobile gaming trends. Where everything happens in the background.

MT's have also been clamored for previously. I'm no less annoyed at that, and perplexed that anyone wants to pay more for things that should be in the game by default.

I would argue that they desire these things because they don't know any better. Not because these things are good for games or desirous. Some of them are purely to line pockets (EA and it's MT's being a prime example) to the objective detriment to games.

 

[Iron Maiden]

Nope. Just a huge mentality that the only things games should do and can do is things they have done elsewhere. It's a mass mentality of only eating chocolate ice cream and demanding chocolate ice cream be served with all meals because you liked chocolate ice cream in another situation. Strawberry ice cream obviously can't exist. And if it does, it must include chocolate ice cream. Tis silly. I see you all as silly.

in what way shape or form... is having many paths and options for many type of players forcing everyone to "eat chocolate ice cream" only..

you are actually basically saying you're against the mentality that you yourself are trying to push without even realizing it... just because YOU dont want npc's/pve content (a vast option of things) doesnt mean everyone should be forced to never have any of it and be forced to eat YOUR "chocolate ice cream" so you can be happy with YOUR "chocolate ice cream"


Hypocrisy


Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another or the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles.

so you lumped a vast diverse way to play games into one category and then say thats.. only eating chocolate ice cream.. yet its hundreds of different playstyles or things content wise like I stated in the skills alone. are all those skills chocolate ice cream? no each one sdifferent and will attract a different type of person and their interests... strawberry ice cream is what you are forcefully saying everyone must have because other successful games used chocolate ice cream (and strawberry ice cream if im right in assuming its pvp and chocolates pve) so we should all conform to your wants of strawberry only and exclude anyone who likes chocolate or any other flavor on the basis that other games already do it and many players enjoy it? so whos the game being made for? a large group of people or just you and a small fraction of players who only want pvp. then once the pvp is there you realize that "oh theres no one playing the game... no one to actually pvp with" and wonder why. well its because you excluded all the players and made it only about pvp which is pointless without people to fight and players playing the game to keep numbers up.

 

[Recatek]

It's a popular request because it's what other games do

You have it backwards. Other games do it because it's popular and fun. It's a great way to add content and life to a game world, something Starbase desperately needs. Learning from other games is a virtue, not a failing. Starbase is already trying to reinvent too many wheels at once, and is naively approaching problems that have already been solved multiple times elsewhere in the genre.

FB's job is to manage expectations. Which they've done by saying that is not the defining segment of the game, and they wish to minimize it as much as possible.

PvE (actual PvE, not "harmful dust clouds" PvE) is already minimized as much as possible by not existing. They're stating the exact opposite by expressing an interest in exploring the idea.

Where the stories are made by players, not them. Where they give the tools and we do all the awesome things.

Game-driven content doesn't threaten this. If anything, it gets more people out into the world making stories and using other tools to create player-content around it. EVE has plenty of game-driven content promoting daily player activity and yet it's still famous for its player stories.

Frankly I see the push for NPC's and extravagant automation as an insult and an emulation of mobile gaming trends.

PvE predates mobile phones.

MT's have also been clamored for previously. I'm no less annoyed at that, and perplexed that anyone wants to pay more for things that should be in the game by default.

MTs as in... microtransactions? How is this relevant in any way?

I would argue that they desire these things because they don't know any better.

People are coming to these forums and composing suggestion threads for game-driven content and PvE because they don't know any better? That's both far-fetched and arrogant. People know what they like and what they want in a game. That's how they select games to play, and right now nearly everyone is selecting games to play that aren't Starbase.

Some of them are purely to line pockets (EA and it's MT's being a prime example) to the objective detriment to games.

Again, not seeing the connection to game-driven content or PvE here.

 

[Seat-Weld]

The only way to recover from Starbase's current position into a functional massively multiplayer game is to add players before the funding runway runs out (which will eventually happen, since that's how money works).

I realize that is an inevitable concern they're going to have to deal with, and agree the launch went about as abysmally as possible (largely due to entirely preventable causes). My point was more that there is still quite a lot of groundwork left to lay (in my opinion), and that it's ultimately going to be healthier in the long run if that's finished before moving forward. You obviously don't want those additional systems to be held back because the original building blocks never quite had all their kinks ironed out.

Suggestions like adding game-driven world content are specifically aiming for that second roadmap. This is a common and popular request, and Frozenbyte is receptive to the idea as a second-roadmap item. Frozenbyte doesn't actually seem to have a concrete game plan/vision to get to 1.0, and that's why this feedback is important.

Oh no I don't have any problem at all with that kind of thing. That's a perfectly valid point, and it's encouraging to hear that Frozenbyte is taking stock of it. I'm specifically just annoyed by suggestions like the original post that ask for some hyper-specific system out of left field, that would require Starbase to radically reinvent itself. I'm not violently allergic to the concept of PvE, so long as it actually meshes with the game.

I don't believe those features alone are likely to bring the game back up to sustainably healthy player numbers.

Again, that's the kind of concern that makes sense and that helps give the devs things to keep in mind going forward. I'm sure they are very aware of how empty and lifeless the game currently is by virtue of there being a laundry list of things yet to be added, so reminding them of that fact does little to help anyone. Specifically bringing up in advance that future features won't be enough to fully satisfy players, however, gives a lot more for them to work with.

Right now it very much isn't, unless you really like rocks and gas.

The biggest drawback of a space game, honestly. Although I'd argue it's more of an environmental issue specifically (You'd still run into just as much issue trying find NPCs in the void of space as you would other players, if you aren't careful). Adding in dungeons or mobs or whatever wouldn't hurt, but I definitely still wish there was a little more to look at than the same rocks or featureless blackness of space.

I'm not suggesting that FB cancel the current roadmap and start on this immediately, but once the current roadmap is nearing completion, I absolutely believe we should see some game-driven/PvE content on the next one.

We're more or less on the same page, I think. I guess I'm just a little paranoid. I've seen too many similar games jump the gun on adding new content before anything else is remotely playable, and quickly devolve into a broken mess. Starbase is the first I've seen in a while that actually seems like it has potential, so I'd hate to see it fall into the same pitfalls. I'm happy with whatever so long as they don't do something stupid like focus on PvE content while ignoring the fact stations are still nonfunctional.

Then allow me to direct you to mine: Rogue Drones, Progenitor Mines. These are pragmatic suggestions that build on existing foundations within the game and leave room for future expansion while still being practical in the short term.

Interesting ideas. I like the Progenitor Mines specifically.

 

[Iron Maiden]

It's a popular request because it's what other games do. Being a copycat does no one any favors. people come here with expectations. But that's their problem. FB's job is to manage expectations. Which they've done by saying that is not the defining segment of the game, and they wish to minimize it as much as possible. For many reasons. Instead they want the game player driven, with player investment and enjoyment. Where the stories are made by players, not them. Where they give the tools and we do all the awesome things.

Frankly I see the push for NPC's and extravagant automation as an insult and an emulation of mobile gaming trends. Where everything happens in the background.

MT's have also been clamored for previously. I'm no less annoyed at that, and perplexed that anyone wants to pay more for things that should be in the game by default.

I would argue that they desire these things because they don't know any better. Not because these things are good for games or desirous. Some of them are purely to line pockets (EA and it's MT's being a prime example) to the objective detriment to games.

so you see pve and npcs and story driven games that are single player and have been huge hits for years before the more modern number of multiplayer games only trend took place?

so dark souls is just a mobile game which no one actually liked to play they just did because they didnt know any better?

and how is starbase not just a "copycat" of call of duty, or games like that if its going to be purely pvp based.

Valheim is single player pve co op. how many didnt know any better there?
Ark is a pve full of life game which then has pvp in it too. probably only sold like 100 copies right?
I honestly cant even understand what youre trying to say anymore... you want a game with literally nothing in it

 

[Recatek]

My point was more that there is still quite a lot of groundwork left to lay (in my opinion), and that it's ultimately going to be healthier in the long run if that's finished before moving forward. You obviously don't want those additional systems to be held back because the original building blocks never quite had all their kinks ironed out.

Agreed on this and all of your other points here. I see PvE and PvP as working together to add life to the world. Territory PvP is largely driven by a desire to control points of interest, and PvE is a strong tool to create those types of POIs. The point of PvE, at least as I've been proposing it, is to provide a baseline of daily activity as a foundation that player-driven activity can build upon. This requires both player-driven and game-driven groundwork to be in place to function, and I'm not discounting the importance of the former at all. I just don't think a game that relies entirely on player-driven content will ever reach the critical mass it needs for that kind of ecosystem to come online, especially when Starbase has such a limited niche to begin with as a complicated engineering game.

 

[Seat-Weld]

Frankly I see the push for NPC's and extravagant automation as an insult and an emulation of mobile gaming trends. Where everything happens in the background.

I think you might be confused? I don't think anyone is arguing for No Man's Sky style NPCs or anything of that nature. "PvE" would probably take the form of hostile drones or some other mob that you could happen upon while out and about. Nothing incredibly invasive or that would replace player interactions, it would just be something else to do between said interactions.