PASSIVE SENSOR TYPES | How to find stuff & a reason to multi-crew

[Cavilier210]

I can't be the only one here that kinda hopes to stumble on Recatek ingame and blow him up am I?

But damn, you guys have so much to say I can't keep up anymore XD

 

[[TAC] NASA]

🎶 This is the thread that never ends... 🎶


Worse enough to impact your mining yield compared to the miniscule extra chance it gives you of defending yourself. Tripods require other people, and if you're tying up more than maybe one other person to go mining with you, any additional people are better off piloting their own mining ship instead of being bored on yours.


Because they're typically bad in a game where you can hyper-optimize your ships for a single purpose.


Armor is heavy, I don't think we need to go to great lengths to establish that. It's intended to be.


There's plenty of ways to create emergent gameplay that isn't already decided before either side even sees one another, as is the case for the vast majority of pirate vs. miner instances.


Because it isn't worth making every mining run worse for the slim chance of maybe defending yourself in the slim chance of you being attacked on a run. And, even then, a hyper-optimized combat ship is still going to vastly outperform a hybrid ship that's a worse miner and also a bad warship.


Yes, because efficient and optimal mining is more important to some players, and losses are rare enough to be risk-managed.


Sure, but it's still exceedingly unlikely.


If you're mining efficiently enough in a ship that's well optimized for cost, then this is an acceptable loss.


I'm pointing out that there are ways for the game to promote actually interesting PvP with more uncertain (and thus, engaging) outcomes.


Aside from the hyperbole, this is pretty close to the point. A ship built for mining piloted by a player who is not a dedicated combat player has an exceedingly slim likelihood of beating a ship built for killing miners piloted by a player with hundreds or thousands of hours of experience doing so, even if said miner has nominal armor and weapons to defend itself. The chances and likelihood just aren't worth it compared to running cheaper miners that mine better and just accepting the occasional loss as a hazard.


Not much. Sensors would certainly increase the degree of counterplay and make things more interesting. The point here is to give some actual agency to miners in this situation.


Please watch your language.


Maybe, but it would be nice if some groups of players other than pirates played the game. Pirates tend to be a pretty small minority of playerbases in games like this.


Sure, though this isn't quite as practical as the game presents it in its trailers. Not yet, anyway.


So far it looks like they're more likely to collapse and fragment all of their groups due to infighting, going by what's happened so far with pirate groups.


Almost like there's a lot of potential for introducing interesting PvP objectives and mechanics beyond just pirate vs. miner and gatecamping.


See above.


The economy is completely demolished because there's hardly any game to Starbase and it peaks at 200 concurrent players in a universe designed for a scale of thousands.


QED


Everything. Mining is about optimizing for yield over time. It's an entire sphere of gameplay, and one of the only actual gameplay pillars Starbase has right now. If a strategy (e.g. armed/armored miners) isn't the most optimal way to get more rockstuff in less time, then it isn't worth doing.


Not the only feasible, but the most efficient, which is what matters.


Experience.


Yes, but what if you could earn more value?


No idea. Starbase's development pace and track record has taught me to completely ignore upcoming features until they're actually implemented and functioning.


See above.


Yes, that's the entire point of risk management and acceptable losses.


The current state of the game is why optimizing for acceptable losses is the most efficient mining strategy.


QED


I've pretty clearly laid out how I want the game to persist, if you happen to read the two forum threads I linked. If you missed those links, they're also in my forum signature.


I don't sit with a notebook and jot down a tally mark for everything that happens to me in game. I'm speaking from general experience, same as you.


Okay.


Maybe. Who knows what will happen in the future with new features.


I don't care.


I don't care.


I don't care.


I don't care.


I don't care.


I don't care.


Because players having agency as they play is important, and players with no agency don't stick around in the game long. It's fine to fish the waters for miners to kill, but you need to make sure to do so sustainably so you still have some left in the game the next time you go out looking.


Okay, I hope you're enjoying 200 max concurrent players then, I guess.


That happens right now, and doesn't seem to be working out that great.


Gankers are entirely dependent on having players to gank. They're pretty helpless gameplay-wise without them. You can either keep all the mechanics stacked in your favor and push people out of the game (as you've been consistently arguing for on the forums), or you can make some concessions so other players still enjoy themselves and you maintain a consistent population of people to gank.


This you? ...

... We're all allowed to speak from personal experience here, including our general experience with interacting with other players.


To be fair, nothing in this thread is going to change anyone's minds at this point, so I don't think this is a terribly important point.


Proud of you.


It's cool once or twice, but otherwise gets pretty tedious compared to just hopping into a new ship.


This seems hopelessly optimistic. Not only do you have to prevail against the pirate, you need to do so in such a way that the pirate (which is almost certainly faster and more maneuverable than the miner) doesn't disengage early and leave.


The entire point is to optimize for cheaper miners for the sake of risk management. Though, if you're arguing to make ships even more expensive than they currently are, good luck with that.


Well no. The good part is when it's the most efficient thing to do as far as mining yield per hour and ship costs.


A terribly slim chance, all things considered. You seem very wrapped up in the ego/pride of the situation, whereas I'm speaking just from the standpoint of optimizing mining yield -- in this situation I couldn't care less about blowing ships up or not, it's about the time efficiency.


(...immediately continues posting...)


I'm not sure, but I think this might have sounded tougher and more inspiring than it actually reads in text.


Well, no. We're talking about the difference between a good fighter and a good miner. Both of those depend on optimization, since Starbase allows you to hyper-optimize your ships to extreme degrees. Hybrids are usually a weakness.


Turrets work terribly. Tripods require other players.


There's nothing idiotic about optimizing for yield.


The likelihood if this actually happening, especially when said other miner probably won't have whatever tracking equipment the game eventually gets, seems pretty slim.


I think the bigger idiot here is the one who foregoes efficiency to feebly try to prepare for extremely rare and non-catastrophic circumstances.


This goes both ways.


Convoys require a lot of other players, many of whom are probably going to be very bored for most of the session, and who would be better off in their own mining ships getting your group even more rockstuff.


Again, you don't have a monopoly on the ability to speak from experience.


You seem really hung up on this prey stuff -- is this all just some sort of ego/pride thing?


Yes, that's what risk management is about. It isn't worth sacrificing your ship's effectiveness at the one thing it's intended to do (procure rockstuff) for a marginal increase in performance in something it isn't intended to do (fight), and still likely won't succeed at.


Because there's good rockstuff out there, and you're likely to be able to get it regardless of pirates if you're cautious.


I don't know, I think the person vociferously arguing against anything that could possibly give their opponent any sort of counterplay or advantage is the one trying to keep the game pretty casual for themself.

Good thread catch-up. See you tomorrow to say all the same stuff all over again in different ways!

Now that is a long reply if I have ever seen one.

 

[Foraven]

I can't be the only one here that kinda hopes to stumble on Recatek ingame and blow him up am I?

But damn, you guys have so much to say I can't keep up anymore XD

I can resume it for you: One side argue about having pride and fight even when it's pointless (and fly their ships to the bitter end), the other that time is valuable and should not be wasted flying inefficient ships and engage in fights lost in advance. One side thinks this game is about constantly fighting for survival, the other is to accomplish whatever goals we have while not doing the boring and tedious stuff.

 

[Recatek]

I can resume it for you: One side argue about having pride and fight even when it's pointless (and fly their ships to the bitter end), the other that time is valuable and should not be wasted flying inefficient ships and engage in fights lost in advance. One side thinks this game is about constantly fighting for survival, the other is to accomplish whatever goals we have while not doing the boring and tedious stuff.

And neither side actually cares enough about what the other side is saying to be convinced of anything.

 

[kiiyo]

And to think this thread started from a genuinely quite good suggestion of radiation scanners from NASA lol.

 

[Askannon]

And to think this thread started from a genuinely quite good suggestion of radiation scanners from NASA lol.

Where I think that the 360° bit might be a bit low in terms of functionality, as I can only think that applying to a plane, requiring the sensor to rotate (or a second sensor) to give an actual heading of incoming signals.

 

[Cavilier210]

I can resume it for you: One side argue about having pride and fight even when it's pointless (and fly their ships to the bitter end), the other that time is valuable and should not be wasted flying inefficient ships and engage in fights lost in advance. One side thinks this game is about constantly fighting for survival, the other is to accomplish whatever goals we have while not doing the boring and tedious stuff.

Por que no los dos?

 

[Cavilier210]

I think both sides have good points.

I also think both sides are right to desire their version of fulfilling gameplay.

What I think is wrong is to not allow for mechanisms that allow for both. Which FB's plans seem to actually allow for both. With a simplified sector security-ish model. No NPC enforcers, but game implemented limits. On actions.

So both will be, as designed currently, allowed to do both options. But Recatek will have to remain in safe space to safely use his Uber miner with no frills. And I'll have to be out in open space to kill people like that ingame. Except during war.

So... that argument is kinda moot.

Now the sensors? We need sensors. Passive and active. And interesting. So let's get back to that

 

[DivineEvil]

Yes, we need sensors. The game suffers terribly for the lack of them. I disagree with pavvel that the implementation suggested by the OP, or any other implementation is likely to be advantageous to either party because both parties can use them.

I also wash my hands from the ongoing discussion. I'm not going to argue against someone deliberately applying Gish Gallop fallacy to curb the response by cutting my arguments into dozens of tiny pieces instead of addressing them in whole context, including my arguments given to other people. This is just dishonest and numbingly petty arguing style, and I'm not going to waste my time on that.

 

[Foraven]

Now the sensors? We need sensors. Passive and active. And interesting. So let's get back to that

I think that implementing a similar sensor system as in Nebulous would be quite fitting in Starbase. At the very least, allow such mechanics for larger ship warfare where guns / missiles requires sensors to be effective. Small, WW2 style fighter combat is fun, but so is big ship trading blows in the background. Also, I think sensors should be specialized tools not every ships should have, but that whatever they are finding can be shared with friendlies nearby so they can use it to make guided weapons find their mark or deny the enemy to be able to use them. More interesting gameplay that involve teamwork rather than individuals doing their duels with each others.

 

[Recatek]

But Recatek will have to remain in safe space to safely use his Uber miner with no frills.

Your perception of how you think I play the game and the type of game I'm looking for out of Starbase is so far off the mark that it would honestly be a shame to correct it at this point.

I also wash my hands from the ongoing discussion. I'm not going to argue against someone deliberately applying Gish Gallop fallacy to curb the response by cutting my arguments into dozens of tiny pieces instead of addressing them in whole context, including my arguments given to other people. This is just dishonest and numbingly petty arguing style, and I'm not going to waste my time on that.

Your mistake here was in holding out any hope of someone changing their mind in a forum argument instead of just digging their heels in deeper.

 

[DivineEvil]

Your mistake here was in holding out any hope of someone changing their mind in a forum argument instead of just digging their heels in deeper.

Oh I certainly did change people's minds in the past when they actually tried to follow the logical chain and valid reasoning principles. My mistake was assuming you are capable of that, which you evidently aren't. Maybe review your own line of reasoning once in a while to see if it makes any sense at all and if you're not relying all to heavy on the hypothetics and generalizing assumptions you've made yourself. At least it would help you to look more coherrent.

 

[Recatek]

Oh I certainly did change people's minds in the past when they actually tried to follow the logical chain and valid reasoning principles.

I demand you substantiate this claim, posthaste!

My mistake was assuming you are capable of that, which you evidently aren't.

Have you considered that trying to "gotcha" people with various names of logical fallacies or whatever just isn't very convincing?

Maybe review your own line of reasoning once in a while to see if it makes any sense at all

Excuse me, I put a lot of effort into my forum posting. Of course I review my work. That's why it's so excellent.

and if you're not relying all to heavy on the hypothetics and generalizing assumptions you've made yourself.

"The only valid experience is my own experience." - You, probably.

At least it would help you to look more coherrent.

coherent*

 

[Foraven]

Oh I certainly did change people's minds in the past when they actually tried to follow the logical chain and valid reasoning principles. My mistake was assuming you are capable of that, which you evidently aren't. Maybe review your own line of reasoning once in a while to see if it makes any sense at all and if you're not relying all to heavy on the hypothetics and generalizing assumptions you've made yourself. At least it would help you to look more coherrent.

I am sure he understand your logical reasoning just fine, he just disagree with the conclusion you have made. The problem with logical reasoning is that no matter how sound it is, it's useless when it comes to define preferences and moral values. For example you find it unacceptable to just give your ship without a fight, others just see no problem if it's too much hassle to try to save it. It's not a failure of logic, it's personal preferences.

 

[DivineEvil]

I am sure he understand your logical reasoning just fine, he just disagree with the conclusion you have made. The problem with logical reasoning is that no matter how sound it is, it's useless when it comes to define preferences and moral values. For example you find it unacceptable to just give your ship without a fight, others just see no problem if it's too much hassle to try to save it. It's not a failure of logic, it's personal preferences.

That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is:
- The best PvP is one that is not planned.
- Disagree because MMO doesn't do that well and tend to lean towards structured PvP (no examples given).
- Not constructive. Miners should defend themselves.
- Miners can also leave, the game have to be designed to appeal to everyone (which never worked and never will).
- Inadequate players will leave. Adequate players are never upset if they are killed.
- The design of Starbase is really not centered on pirates-hunting-miners gameplay (baseless assertion about the game still being designed).
- Show the evidence. PvP is PvP regardless of parties involved.
- NO, PvP is only when players are prepared and in shape to do it, miners are disadvantaged (no evidence provided, more assertions).
- Combat miners are possible, as long as one wants to make one, he will have a chance to win the conflict.
- No. No. No. Fighting back is useless, optimizations is paramount (here we see the convenient merge of what should be with what currently is).
- I want sensors to be active and to be more engaging.
- You want have all advantages over the miner.
- Already said how miners can defend themselves.
- They can't because it is "impractical" because it reduces profit and its easier to get a new ship than to fight over the current one (again, using the current realities of broken economy and low population to justify player's negligence as valid strategy).
- What makes you think you cannot defend yourself as a miner?
- Experience.
- How much specifically do you have to reduce your mining effectiveness to defend yourself?
- Enough.

This is the logical chain across the entire thread. This is just trolling. Picking a fight with someone, making blatant assertions about Starbase and how it is designed, and how other games work, about how it is impossible to do so and so, and how it is unviable to do things any other way but one way. When asked for ANY evidence or specifics -arbitrary remarks or avoiding the question. Again, this is just dishonest arguing for the sake of arguing, no effort given, no defined position being argued for. Just moving the goal post from "what should be" to "what is" and back as convenient to keep the rambling going. This is nonsense.

The debate is "passive sensors is too much" versus "passive sensors are valid"? That means this is our hypothetical here, right? So then why would anyone bring up how RIGHT NOW there's little to no chance to be engaged by a pirate? Why would anyone bring up how RIGHT NOW everyone have so much stuff that they can just replace a lost ship? Does that will work out for the situation when the game will have more stable population? Does that will work out when you will have ore refining? Does that will work out if you have sensors, passive or active, where players can find each other? Will then people start thinking about defending themselves in one way or another? Or will that still be "impractical"? And if no, then why the hell would you even bring the current state of the game to the table to discuss something that may or may not be the case depending on the sensor mechanics?

Are we done yet?

 

[pavvvel]

In addition to imposing their opinion as the only true and complete indifference to any gameplay other than their own, these people constantly shy away from arguments.
Constant trolling and disrespect for the interlocutor.

Think on this:
They say that meetings with other players are extremely rare and that the loss of an "optimized" ship does not cause them a financial disadvantage.... At the same time, they say that they need passive sensors........... ( Many many dots). This means that they do not respect anyone's gameplay so much for their own that they are ready to promote any casual ideas to evade PVP..... They even decided for others what they liked and even decided for the developers what kind of game they were making...........oh....

Any adult people understands that a game built on evasion (evade) cannot be successful. For the game to be successful, it must be built not only on evasion, but also on interaction and confrontation. Also, adult people understand that the gameplay of "evasion and complete lack of resistance during an attack" Can attract only those who will only do the same to the game. And this is a fiasco....
. On the other hand, gameplay based on random events, resistance, confrontation, hunting and interaction can attract into the game those who are ready to create and destroy, explore and enlighten, interact or be a loner who hones skills and chooses his own unique gameplay. It is worth adding that the gameplay of "evasion" will not help to develop the role in any way. And roleplay is one of the best directions in the game and it is impossible without PVP.
People who want to evade will not think. They will not think about protection, about interaction, about training and about the gameplay of other players.

All they want is to Make a ship out of rotten cheap planks and send a ship to 1000 km, turn on auto-avoidance of asteroids, turn on passive sensors and a siren, move the window with the game to the edge of the monitor, open 5 bottles of beer, throw chips on the table and watch a movie... Do you think this gameplay is adequate???


This is a game with a single open world. With complete destruction. And it is necessary not to invent casual mechanics for evasion, but adequate mechanics for the development of gameplay. I am sure that the content containing PVP and role-playing should be at least 50% of the total content and then many players will come to the game.

 

[kiiyo]

All they want is to Make a ship out of rotten cheap planks and send a ship to 1000 km, turn on auto-avoidance of asteroids, turn on passive sensors and a siren, move the window with the game to the edge of the monitor, open 5 bottles of beer, throw chips on the table and watch a movie... Do you think this gameplay is adequate???

I would commit unspeakable acts for the mining gameplay loop to actually be fun and not "sit until you are in the belt, mine for a lil while, then sit until you are back at your station". However, I really haven't seen much of anything in the progress notes that will change this anytime soon (and to be honest, in the roadmap too). I really have no idea how this could be spiced up into a more fun experience (seriously, I don't. Any sort of hazard or activity I think up would just be tedious if it has to be constantly dealt with), so if you guys do then go ahead and throw them. And no, I don't think that sensors would fix this because much like the pirate can use them to find a miner, the miner can use it to avoid the pirate, which this thread has estabilished is considered "inadequate gameplay" (I disagree, but let's go along).

 

[Foraven]

- The best PvP is one that is not planned.

That's because you enjoy the thrill of it, that's not the case of everyone. I don't, I am not alone. I much prefer doing things with a goal in mind like taking over objectives or supporting allies than worry about losing my stuff in an unplanned fight. Attacking other players at random is not what everyone seek when playing a game like Starbase.

- Not constructive. Miners should defend themselves.

Why? Bravery? Thrill? For honor? For someone who don't enjoy the thrill of unplanned fights, it's not hard to consider it as wasting their time. From a real world perspective, yeah it's stupid, we have only one life to lose so we should defend it. But in game, we are immortal, all we lose is our time. If fighting a mostly lost in advance fight is not our thing, we won't fight it, period.

- Inadequate players will leave. Adequate players are never upset if they are killed.

Who are you to decide who should or should not play Starbase? Do you really think only combat oriented players have their place in this game?

- Show the evidence. PvP is PvP regardless of parties involved.

That's a matter of opinion. There is no objective answer for this.

- NO, PvP is only when players are prepared and in shape to do it, miners are disadvantaged (no evidence provided, more assertions).

Who is the easiest target? The one who is ready for it or one who is busy doing something else?

Combat miners are possible, as long as one wants to make one, he will have a chance to win the conflict.

A combat miner is like bringing a knife in a gunfight. Yeah, it's possible to win it, but most of the time you won't unless you are exceptionally good or lucky.

Adding tripods don't make a mining ship a combat miner. It just add scarecrows to fend off the small fries (or kill off easy targets).

How much specifically do you have to reduce your mining effectiveness to defend yourself?

By a lot. An optimal mining ship for out of safe zone is covered with rangefinders for asteroid avoidance, has open cabin for great field of view with lots of yolol assisted stuff, is barebone to save as much weight as possible so it's not unbearably slow, has several mining lasers to munch asteroids as fast as possible, carry a lot of rods in a conveniently accessible position so they can be swapped quickly, has a lot of propellant for long range and of course, has lots of crates so it doesn't have to go home as often. A typical fighter on other hand is as small as possible to be a difficult target, has several weapons in optimal position for easy aiming and tight groupings, is armored, has great maneuvering thrust so it can keep the target in it's sight and skim on everything that would not improve it's combat performance. Now, how can you combine the two without compromising performance at either job? Add weapons to it and it compete with the space for the mining lasers. Add armor, you add a lot of weight, have to remove rangefinders (thus no AA), have to seriously reduce field of view to protect the pilot. And what about the many generators, batteries, fuel tanks, radiators? Can you protect all that so the ship stand a chance in a fight? What about all the spare rods? And that extra weight you haul around, where do you put extra thrusters on a ship that already has literal walls of them? Do you see the compromises that have to be made to make this work now? Do you really think it can be done without making a terrible ship that is bad at both job?

Yes we can add tripods... But you need extra hands to man them and they have limited firing arcs so you need several of them to protect a large ship. It works. But it's only a deterrent, it just scare away the weak pirates.

Yes, we can have a small ship like the Laborer be somewhat fight capable, but that's not going to mine much nor be anything that would stand a chance against a real fighting ship. For most players, it's terribly inefficient and not worth their time to consider.

 

[dustyFB]

This thread turned out well, I think. While I do appreciate that we all have such impassioned opinions on this particular topic, I'm going to close it now since it seems to devolved to circular discussion without any new talking points, and is only serving to inflame its participants. In the future, please remember to keep the discussion focused on the subject at hand, and avoid making digs at one another.