Warp trace

[Vexus]

I understand your desire to hunt capital ships, and perhaps some marker or even wormhole could exist for a few hours between the departure and arrival coordinate for military ships, however, when it comes to civilian ships, it seems the intention is for "a state of zero risk and extremely high reward" - so some way to track them seems moot, because there will probably be some arbitrary rule about camping outside the safe zone of a civilian ship, because players will inevitably camp right outside civilian ship safe zones... I don't agree with it, and have seen the evidence of this kind of thing failing in games, so the outcome is known if this direction is pursued*. But that's the intent. A wormhole between the two points would at least be pretty neat and focus players into random areas they might not otherwise go to, though.

*Imagine Rust where you could have "safe bases" where no one can attack your "safe base" but they can attack your "combat base." No one would waste time on your "combat base" because you'll always store your valuables in your "safe base" and well... the game would flounder with no reason to interact with other players in the intended way of the game.

 

[pavvvel]

I understand your desire to hunt capital ships, and perhaps some marker or even wormhole could exist for a few hours between the departure and arrival coordinate for military ships, however, when it comes to civilian ships, it seems the intention is for "a state of zero risk and extremely high reward" - so some way to track them seems moot, because there will probably be some arbitrary rule about camping outside the safe zone of a civilian ship, because players will inevitably camp right outside civilian ship safe zones... I don't agree with it, and have seen the evidence of this kind of thing failing in games, so the outcome is known if this direction is pursued*. But that's the intent. A wormhole between the two points would at least be pretty neat and focus players into random areas they might not otherwise go to, though.

*Imagine Rust where you could have "safe bases" where no one can attack your "safe base" but they can attack your "combat base." No one would waste time on your "combat base" because you'll always store your valuables in your "safe base" and well... the game would flounder with no reason to interact with other players in the intended way of the game.

what we will get now:
the capital jumps, the player mines without risk, with a high reward.
considering the size of eos alone.. It can be understood that the search for ships by heat will not increase the risk. I don't think it's technically possible to see the heat of a moving ship at a distance of 1000 kilometers in Starbase, because often we can't even load the LOD being nearby.

I agree that we need to think about and discuss all possible options. my goal is to add a risk commensurate with the reward to the players. this would be fair and it is necessary for adequate gameplay.
if there is no risk, then players will be able to earn billions of credits by flying ships assembled from boards removed from an old barn, and without thinking about safety, cooperation and training. this is wrong.

please offer your ideas on how to make the risk commensurate with the reward.

 

[Vexus]

if there is no risk, then players will be able to earn billions of credits by flying ships assembled from boards removed from an old barn, and without thinking about safety, cooperation and training. this is wrong.

Yes. My point is: even though this is wrong and has "impending doom" written on it for the future of an engaged playerbase - because players, PvE or PvP alike, need some risk/reward mechanic to enjoy a game - this "riskless gameplay" seems to be the direction the devs are headed in.

Capital ships are just static stations with the ability to instantly (after a countdown) teleport to different coordinates. They will have safe zones; so semi-mobile permanent safe zones. There is no way to match the risk with the reward with this kind of system; there is no risk, at all, with a permanent safe zone. The only risk is when you just made a jump, and a couple hours later some enemy ships show up to camp your safe zone, so you sit in your capital ship safe zone for the next 20 hours waiting to make another jump, while complaining about the situation on Discord and forums. It's not going to be good for anyone.

The answer is to do away with the special treatment of civilian capital ships and make players come together for the security and safety of their capitals by having all capital ships be "military" ships capable of combat. They can all have safe zones as long as they can be assaulted in some way, and perhaps capitals which do not power lots of weaponry have more room for the upkeep of a safe zone to more likely escape combat.

please offer your ideas on how to make the risk commensurate with the reward.

The simple answer is there is no viable idea to make the risk commensurate with the reward as long as a permanent safe zone is in place. Risk / reward is a math equation. With zero risk, the reward means nothing. Risk (my entire 1 billion credit capital) / reward (of 100 million credits worth of ore) = viable gameplay. With permanent safe zones eliminating risk, the gameplay does not work out. It also devalues everyone else's enjoyment because materials and so on become so easy to come by, that nothing you do matters. EVE did a good job here, giving players the ability to sink credits into massive ships for massive risk/reward moves, but those expensive ships were lost at such a rate, due to the ingenuity of players, that the economy, which involved lots of PvE grind, stayed in check.

The answer is to not have permanent safe zones around capitals - allow any amount of risk above zero. As this is an ancient game design problem, it bothers me to see Starbase devs try and tackle this like it's something new AND to choose the wrong solution which has proven to be wrong time and time again. It's precisely why cheating/hacking is not good in video games. If a player can give themselves infinite health, then there is no risk, and the reward of playing the game means nothing; as well, in multiplayer games, this greatly devalues everyone else's gameplay. But that's what Starbase devs are saying. They're saying, "You have infinite health in this capital ship safe zone," which is akin to a cheat code which devalues any and all risk of making the thing and deploying it.

I won't go into detail about the prospect of parking your safe capital ship somewhere, going out to fight people, and then running back to your safe zone the moment there's any threat - not only is this boring for the safe-zone player, but the person attempting to "get revenge" for being attacked runs into a safe zone where they have no outlet for their frustration of being attacked and surviving.

The other problem is all the "new" problems that will be created (like above) and rabbit-hole solutions that will need to be added to band-aid this. For example, special "capital ship" fuel will be likely. And in doing so, the "risk" of being stranded because you ran out of fuel seems to be something above zero risk. However there is no risk of loss, due to the safe zone, and so the task of refueling becomes tedious and repetitive, securing fuel for a riskless enterprise. It would be like picking up health potions while you're already at infinite health. It becomes yet another problem to solve, and another problem people will inevitably complain about. This leads to more rabbit-hole solutions that all stem from the initial problem.

Attempts should be made to ensure every player action has meaning. Without that, there is a breakdown of the entire gameplay. This is why PvP MMOs are hard, because the temptation is there to set rules and restrictions when the opposite should be the goal (and is the proven solution). The more freedom you give players, without bottlenecking them into strange dev-created rulesets, the more the players flourish in crafting their own meta game out of the universe. The focus then should be on enhancing the gameplay the players show interest in, not eliminating it.

A good example of this was the wreckage on the moon out of the warp gate on EA release. This yielded so much gameplay, and instead of enhancing this and improving it, the devs killed it by making the entire area a safe zone. But it was a focal point for all players to go to, to salvage loot, or to engage in PvP, or just hang out hiding among the wrecks seeing other ships fight overhead. This natural meta game evolved due to the game mechanics - the players who "did not know any better" and lost their ships actually had some skin in the game knowing their wrecked ship was being fought over in some way or another. Their loss became part of someone else's story.

A safe zone is like... Pong, but your paddle spans the entire screen. The other player is unable to score a single point, because you're safe. As such, the other player stops playing, because there's no reward for them, and you quit, because there's no risk for you (and subsequently, no reward as no one is playing with you).

It's not a suggestion, or a personal request, or a wish or anything else; the removal of widespread permanent safe zones throughout the game is a necessity for the health of the game. A singular, large safe zone that covers 1000km in a sphere is enough to keep risk-adverse people engaged in that area; people who want risk should be able to quickly move out of that area and into the freedom of space where anything goes. Players will define that meta and the game will have a unique character not bottlenecked by arbitrary rule sets.

 

[pavvvel]

The simple answer is there is no viable idea to make the risk commensurate with the reward as long as a permanent safe zone is in place. Risk / reward is a math equation. With zero risk, the reward means nothing. Risk (my entire 1 billion credit capital) / reward (of 100 million credits worth of ore) = viable gameplay. With permanent safe zones eliminating risk, the gameplay does not work out. It also devalues everyone else's enjoyment because materials and so on become so easy to come by, that nothing you do matters. EVE did a good job here, giving players the ability to sink credits into massive ships for massive risk/reward moves, but those expensive ships were lost at such a rate, due to the ingenuity of players, that the economy, which involved lots of PvE grind, stayed in check.

The constant safe zones and the ugly grid are a huge problem. Right now the safe zone earns 2.5 million an hour. It is unclear why the developers are adding there a lot of big stones in the update - the earnings will increase by 4 times. --I agree, this is wrong and bad. But that's not what we're discussing right now.
Your saying that at zero risk the reward means nothing is nonsense. Capital jumped into the unknown, there with no risk, he made a few billion in a week's worth of ore. Does that mean nothing to you?
And for such earnings will not need any skills at all: the cheapest capital, the cheapest ships.

You have written a lot, but offered nothing. I ask you to offer something.

 

[Vexus]

Capital jumped into the unknown, there with no risk, he made a few billion in a week's worth of ore. Does that mean nothing to you?

... Yes. It devalues all the effort. It's why PvE doesn't "work" because with a flood of resources, and no resource-sink (resources leaving the economy), no one buys the material, and you also have no use for "unlimited" resources.

It not only devalues your effort, but everyone else's.

Keep in mind, the "billions worth" is just worth - no one is going to buy it, because it's just as easy for anyone else to get.

It means nothing because it devalues all the effort anyone would put towards doing any mining or anything else. We're arguing the same point, but from a different perspective. You're thinking someone is making tons of money for free, but that's irrelevant, because there's no credits to be earned when no one is buying the material, when everyone has easy access to free, safe, unlimited resources, through safe-zone based capital ships, with absolutely no risk of loss.

You're more optimistic about the health of the system, that some people will just get rich using safe-zone capital ships, whereas I'm stating the inevitable outcome - no one cares and players leave due to everything being free, easy to access, no challenge, and nothing matters. If you have 10,000 stacks of every ore, your loss of an individual ship means very little - just reprint it and fly out again. This devaluation in your gameplay means you don't care to play anymore, because your efforts "don't matter" in the game.

"Disposable income" in real life is the example of this. People who obtain lots of wealth often get bored of simple pleasures. In a game this is much more critical, because there's little else to do, whereas in real life we have lots of distractions. So in a game, the focus should be on ensuring players are incentivized to fight over something that matters, and for there to be a state of near-perpetual conflict to ensure resources and credits are leaving the game world at the same rate players are mining that stuff out of the game world. But right now, you have "infinite income" with "zero loss" and... it's an ancient game design problem. It shouldn't be a thing to make it easy and safe to do anything in a space game. Everything should be dangerous and costly... which is something casual players don't like, but lots of casual players still complain and post negative reviews about Rust - and still play the game, because there's danger and loss every hour of gameplay...

You have written a lot, but offered nothing. I ask you to offer something.

I did offer something: remove "civilian" capital ships - remove their safe zones (and only have "safe zones" at the bare minimum of places, like warp gate exits - leave the rest of the world dangerous).

But, I offered that with the caveat that the devs have decided to cater to the voice of casual players, and so it's not likely, meaning... there is nothing to offer that will be likely be accepted. There must be a commitment by devs to make "a PvP game" if it is to be a PvP game, like Space-Rust or whatever. Or, to make a PvE game, like No Man's Sky.

Rust added Helicopters. Imagine when you got into one, you were immune to damage and your helicopter could not be damaged. You become immune. No one would like it and the game would die with this alone, because everyone would be hovering around in their invincible helicopter, and no one would poke away from their "safe zone" unless they knew they were safe from any harm at all. This one failure would ruin the entire game of Rust. This is what we now have in Starbase, and it's not going to help stuff; people will get "fat" and bored and stop caring because nothing they do has value anymore. No meaning behind it.

It's just a different approach. If the game were a PvE game, then the entire universe might as well be a safe zone - but then do away with all the damage models and guns and weapons. The intention was for space-war, and they need to own that and make it as fluid as possible. See enemy, attack, engage in ship fighting, lose your ship - now board the enemy ship, or ambush the enemy ship as they try to scrap your ship - then die and respawn, rebuild your new ship, and go back out for revenge. This needs to be doable in a 1-2 hour play session, and the risk of your own ship needs to be at least equal reward to the enemy or enemies you're fighting so there's a reason to do it all.

Anyway, went off point, but the point is, with safe zones being mobile now with civilian capital ships, there's no risk, and reward becomes irrelevant, since everyone has the reward.

 

[pavvvel]

... Yes. It devalues all the effort. It's why PvE doesn't "work" because with a flood of resources, and no resource-sink (resources leaving the economy), no one buys the material, and you also have no use for "unlimited" resources.

It not only devalues your effort, but everyone else's.

Keep in mind, the "billions worth" is just worth - no one is going to buy it, because it's just as easy for anyone else to get.

It means nothing because it devalues all the effort anyone would put towards doing any mining or anything else. We're arguing the same point, but from a different perspective. You're thinking someone is making tons of money for free, but that's irrelevant, because there's no credits to be earned when no one is buying the material, when everyone has easy access to free, safe, unlimited resources, through safe-zone based capital ships, with absolutely no risk of loss.

You're more optimistic about the health of the system, that some people will just get rich using safe-zone capital ships, whereas I'm stating the inevitable outcome - no one cares and players leave due to everything being free, easy to access, no challenge, and nothing matters. If you have 10,000 stacks of every ore, your loss of an individual ship means very little - just reprint it and fly out again. This devaluation in your gameplay means you don't care to play anymore, because your efforts "don't matter" in the game.

"Disposable income" in real life is the example of this. People who obtain lots of wealth often get bored of simple pleasures. In a game this is much more critical, because there's little else to do, whereas in real life we have lots of distractions. So in a game, the focus should be on ensuring players are incentivized to fight over something that matters, and for there to be a state of near-perpetual conflict to ensure resources and credits are leaving the game world at the same rate players are mining that stuff out of the game world. But right now, you have "infinite income" with "zero loss" and... it's an ancient game design problem. It shouldn't be a thing to make it easy and safe to do anything in a space game. Everything should be dangerous and costly... which is something casual players don't like, but lots of casual players still complain and post negative reviews about Rust - and still play the game, because there's danger and loss every hour of gameplay...



I did offer something: remove "civilian" capital ships - remove their safe zones (and only have "safe zones" at the bare minimum of places, like warp gate exits - leave the rest of the world dangerous).

But, I offered that with the caveat that the devs have decided to cater to the voice of casual players, and so it's not likely, meaning... there is nothing to offer that will be likely be accepted. There must be a commitment by devs to make "a PvP game" if it is to be a PvP game, like Space-Rust or whatever. Or, to make a PvE game, like No Man's Sky.

Rust added Helicopters. Imagine when you got into one, you were immune to damage and your helicopter could not be damaged. You become immune. No one would like it and the game would die with this alone, because everyone would be hovering around in their invincible helicopter, and no one would poke away from their "safe zone" unless they knew they were safe from any harm at all. This one failure would ruin the entire game of Rust. This is what we now have in Starbase, and it's not going to help stuff; people will get "fat" and bored and stop caring because nothing they do has value anymore. No meaning behind it.

It's just a different approach. If the game were a PvE game, then the entire universe might as well be a safe zone - but then do away with all the damage models and guns and weapons. The intention was for space-war, and they need to own that and make it as fluid as possible. See enemy, attack, engage in ship fighting, lose your ship - now board the enemy ship, or ambush the enemy ship as they try to scrap your ship - then die and respawn, rebuild your new ship, and go back out for revenge. This needs to be doable in a 1-2 hour play session, and the risk of your own ship needs to be at least equal reward to the enemy or enemies you're fighting so there's a reason to do it all.

Anyway, went off point, but the point is, with safe zones being mobile now with civilian capital ships, there's no risk, and reward becomes irrelevant, since everyone has the reward.

I agree that civilian capital ships require changes, as do safe zones. but now the developers will also add ship insurance to the game, this is another nail in the coffin for an adequate economy.
and ore can be sold not only to players. I do not know all the price tags, but probably some ore has a high price from an npc and having civilian capital it will be very, very easy to get rich by mining and selling this ore.
if money has no value, then the game is not interesting. for money to have value, earnings must be commensurate with the risk. that's why I created this thread.
I've been mining for the last month. I've been mining a lot. risked. earned 1-2 million an hour. I didn't know that the developers would make a lot of big stones in the safe zone.... now you can earn 2 million in 10 minutes without risk. why this was done is unclear...
the money I earned this month has depreciated. so now I'm not doing anything in the game, I'm sitting in the editor. I don't want to work again, and then the developers will again "make it easier " the game and again devalue my efforts.
now people are interested - they are populating new planets. but when they get enough, they will get bored, because they have earned a lot of money without risk and have made reserves of all kinds of ore for 10 years ahead. therefore, the infinite safe zone is rich in resources, and the jump of the capital ship is impossible to track

 

[Vexus]

but probably some ore has a high price from an npc and having civilian capital it will be very, very easy to get rich by mining and selling this ore.

Which means everyone will be rich, and thus, being rich will mean nothing, and everyone even attempting to fight each other is doing so not for any gain, but just to waste credits - no meaning behind the conflict (such as securing some point of interest or controlling a resource hub or controlling a neutral station).

I know you've earned the hard way, and that's why you're salty about the ease and safety by which a capital can go away from any player with zero risk and mine as much as they want. The only ... risk per se is the time component. They'll still have to spend roughly the same time as you mining for the same net gain. It's the fact you had to watch your back this entire time, and someone else doesn't - your credits have some meaning behind them, that you endured, survived, went further out, found more secluded spots, vs. just teleporting where no one is able to ever go naturally.

the money I earned this month has depreciated.

I know, I feel for you, except that this is early access and economy changes are one of the most likely things to change. Economy is difficult for game devs to nail down. Think forward; now with these mechanics, you can earn credits even faster than someone else. But... getting from 100 million credits to 110 million credits is much less rewarding than going from 0 credits to 1 million credits. So yeah, it sucks because like I mentioned, you have no real reason to have lots of credits. Everyone in the game is basically "super rich" with nothing to spend it all on.

and again devalue my efforts.

This is the major point behind everything I am arguing. There are broken systems in place which devalue players' efforts vs. rewarding them for their efforts. If you can earn 1-2 million per hour, you should be able to spend/lose 1-2 million per hour (more like 10 million per hour) to ensure credits are always in demand. A simple way to achieve this is a credit-reward system for Empire vs. Kingdom combat, but where you have some cost for 'renting' or 'buying' a faction ship (and/or weapons) for faction combat. But this requires the promise of Empire vs. Kingdom factions to be a thing (their own stations and contested territory)...

 

[pavvvel]

This is the major point behind everything I am arguing. There are broken systems in place which devalue players' efforts vs. rewarding them for their efforts. If you can earn 1-2 million per hour, you should be able to spend/lose 1-2 million per hour (more like 10 million per hour) to ensure credits are always in demand. A simple way to achieve this is a credit-reward system for Empire vs. Kingdom combat, but where you have some cost for 'renting' or 'buying' a faction ship (and/or weapons) for faction combat. But this requires the promise of Empire vs. Kingdom factions to be a thing (their own stations and contested territory)...

I wouldn't want to fight for either of them (empire/kingdom).
Anyway - no mouse control, so no battles. flying around on the keyboard is lame.

 

[Vexus]

Anyway - no mouse control, so no battles. flying around on the keyboard is lame.

I prefer keyboard myself.

There is a mouse control mode. It's not perfect but it does work; check out the keybind in the settings.

 

[Cavilier210]

I prefer keyboard myself.

There is a mouse control mode. It's not perfect but it does work; check out the keybind in the settings.

I also prefer keyboard to mouse. All of these people preferring mouse flying probably think mobile gaming has the best control scheme.

Firing shots here!

 

[Colonkin]

Your reasoning about jump marks for a capital ship is actually useless.
1. Your first position is that the risk does not match the reward. Let's start with this. In your opinion, did the player get the capital ship for free and instantly? This is far from true. Many alloys and rare resources, most of which are collected outside of safe zones. And if the player does not fly out of SZ, he pays an overprice for ore and alloys. This requires at least hours and hours of grinding.
2. Even if you track down a capital ship, a smart player will simply jump on intermediate points. For example, before leaving the game. I wonder on what jump and after how many days will you get tired of flying after him? A player (or group of players) with a capital ship is not new to the game. In addition, the presence of a capital ship allows you to actually mine on junk ships and you will not receive a big reward.
3. Do not forget that this game involves the construction of the universe with the hands and minds of the players. If miners are constantly camped, then what will they build from? On one Charodium and Bastium, the universe will not be built. Let's take DU as an example. As soon as the game went in the direction of strengthening PVP, it simply died. Players who are only interested in piu piu are not able to be the driving force behind the project. And what worries you is that some miners on civilian capital ships will mine with impunity. If you start punishing them in a month, you will have no one to kill. This is the truth of life.

Based on the foregoing, I think that warp trace is a useless thing that is not needed in the game.

BUT.

I also think that there should be a mechanic in the game for players who want to PVP. It is these players who should have a very worthy reward. But not due to the banal robbery of merchants and miners.

As a suggestion - a random respawn of points of interest with rare ore (an asteroid or two, and only in this way can this ore be mined) and only on a military ship (or only on a capital one) can you fly to this point. In addition, you need to fly at least 10 km to the POI itself then. As an extension - there may be an NPC patrol, from which you can also extract T4 modules, for example. Or processed into the same rare ore. Then many ships would fly to this point and it would be fun without tracking the jump. In my personal opinion, it would be both more effective and more interesting.
An alternative to tracking a jump could also be to introduce a distinction between military and civilian stations. And if a military station reaches a certain level, it can charge a tax, for example, from a sphere with a radius of 100 km. If someone has not paid the tax, then the ship marker immediately becomes visible to the owner of the station.

The whole problem with the game is that most players do not have a global goal. Even the initial lore of the game on the confrontation between the Empire and the Kingdom is just a text. I doubt that most players even know about it. Maybe it was worth starting FB with this?

 

[J.D.]

As a suggestion - a random respawn of points of interest with rare ore (an asteroid or two, and only in this way can this ore be mined) and only on a military ship (or only on a capital one) can you fly to this point. In addition, you need to fly at least 10 km to the POI itself then. As an extension - there may be an NPC patrol, from which you can also extract T4 modules, for example. Or processed into the same rare ore. Then many ships would fly to this point and it would be fun without tracking the jump. In my personal opinion, it would be both more effective and more interesting.

this is a terrible idea. Number one, you are obviously heavily biased against pvp, so of course you would suggest to make pvp a very very controlled environment to avoid being killed as a miner/builder. I’ve been here since pre alpha, and you aren’t the first person to have a suggestion like this. The devs ignore them because it lacks balance. The market would have a huge influx on ores from miners, driving down prices of all ores, except the couple you mention in some hot spot. The market thrives when there is a constant demand of ores. There is no demand if ships, and stations are not being destroyed. Eve online is a a perfect example of its very robust economy. They nailed it….

You guys are given a safe zone. Civ cap ships are invincible, and as soon as you lay down a station foundation, it’s a safe zone.

 

[Colonkin]

I'm fine with PVP. While playing EVE, I lived in wormholes for 2 years. Continuous pvp is permanent and unlimited.
I'm biased against the idea of hunting the unarmed. The main argument here is that the miners earn a lot. And people would like to shoot unarmed miners. Needless to say, miners can gather in groups. Mining is the basic entry-level gameplay. Even if you need to collect a group for this, the game will die. That's exactly what worries me. I would not want SB to suffer the fate of other projects that succumbed to the pressure of supporters of one of the factions.

You are right about the issue of balance. Give those who fly one automatic turrets and missiles. For a good fight.

If we talk about Eve online, then there the issue of content for each category of players was well balanced (at least a couple of years ago).
And each player himself chose which way to go.
Even if they introduce WT, I will find ways to piss off those who will try to camp me. This is also a game. But not all players will accept it. And online is not so high.

Again. I really don't want the game to die turning into a PVP sandbox where even those who crave piu piu will become uninteresting.

 

[Vexus]

I'm biased against the idea of hunting the unarmed. The main argument here is that the miners earn a lot. And people would like to shoot unarmed miners. Needless to say, miners can gather in groups. Mining is the basic entry-level gameplay. Even if you need to collect a group for this, the game will die. That's exactly what worries me. I would not want SB to suffer the fate of other projects that succumbed to the pressure of supporters of one of the factions.

The safe zone will never go away; players will be able to mine it forever. This covers the new player and veteran who doesn't want to risk anything as well.

The thing with miners who are not shot is the demand for resources eventually drops approaching zero the "safer" the game is. You only need 1 ship, if you never lose it, and without heavy credit sinks, there's almost no reason to earn credits; in addition, if your main source of credits is an auction house, but no one wants to buy because they don't need it - they need to sell their own - the economy stagnates because no one wants to sell to the vendor (mainly because there's no auction house listing cost). The counter to being shot is in fact working in larger groups and forming friendships and communities, as well as... now... escaping to the middle of nowhere with a capital ship and its safe zone... but anyway...

Eventually resources will over-saturate without a demand, and that demand comes from building new ships. This works fine when new players are joining constantly; it seems resources are being consumed. But they're only being converted into usable objects that never need replacement - if the game is "too safe."

PVP sandbox

Starbase is a PvP sandbox, and was intended to be that even before they considered having it as an MMO. Everything is destructible for a reason. All the voxel damage and fracture damage, FPS shooter weapons and ship weapons, are all there because they wanted space-conflict. The issue has always been their Early Access actions which went against that initial intention, which it seems they're somewhat aware of now as they reduced safe zones around the moon city and so on.

Rust is a PvP sandbox game as well. Lots of risk-adverse people complain about Rust all the time, but the reality is they still play and enjoy it, because there's a lot of meaning behind all the gameplay. If in Rust, resources became so flooded that building a base was cheap or close to free, people would have no reason to fight or raid anyone else, and they'd get bored and leave. The PvE player who wants unlimited access to resources with no risk, is going to be the player who hops on to the next big title (Elden Ring, Lost Ark, etc) the moment it comes available. The PvP sandbox players are the ones who, as in EVE, played the game for a decade or more. You grow those players over time, not all at once. The PvE titles almost all lose their entire playerbase to the next big thing.

Truly the main factor here is the economy. There needs to be resources mined and added, and resources lost. If that rate is not fairly balanced, then everything stagnates. It can seem good when new players join, but that's only temporary; if they never lose anything eventually, with even a small lull in new players, the economy abruptly stops - almost every remote station is an example of this: high initial interest and resource hauling followed by an eventual ghost town because it's just much easier to get credits in the safe zone. Players will seek out the "easy" way as a whole. Gameplay (other players) is needed to make it hard.

I know there are plenty of people with hundreds of millions of credits. A small super-fighter might cost you 500k. But no one is spending, because no one has reason to, because everything can be safe, and you're not incentivized to leverage your resources towards any specific area of the game yet. The only way that leverage will matter is if someone else can contest it. Otherwise it's just pure profit and you end up with another 100 million of never-to-be-spent credits.

The economy is the heart of PvP interaction, and a healthy income to loss is necessary for even PvE games. Starbase is currently like a PvE game where you never die. Every PvE game kills the player - has difficulty slightly harder than the average skilled player. The heart of the game must be embraced. The difficulty in Starbase will come from other players if it is allowed to flourish.

 

[Colonkin]

Regarding the economy, your thoughts are correct. However, instead of solving the problem globally and for everyone, you want to solve this problem only at the expense of some. This will only exacerbate the problem.
The problem is identified correctly. There is an influx of endless money from mining. But in fact, this is the ONLY inflow of money. And for the balance of the economy, it is necessary that there are reverse flows of money. Those. In addition to destroying ships in PVP, there should be other ways to withdraw funds from the game. And they actually do not exist except for refueling ships. And this is very little.
In general, the economy is not highly tuned at the moment in the game.
Again. I don't mind the approach to keep the game interesting. including PVP. I am opposed to the problems of some players being solved at the expense of others.
The mechanics of modern capital ships may look quite raw.
Initially, if you read the FAQ on capital ships, everything looked different.
If warships are given WT then there should be a counter/deception mechanic as well. )))

 

[Cavilier210]

I'm fine with PVP. While playing EVE, I lived in wormholes for 2 years. Continuous pvp is permanent and unlimited.
I'm biased against the idea of hunting the unarmed. The main argument here is that the miners earn a lot. And people would like to shoot unarmed miners. Needless to say, miners can gather in groups. Mining is the basic entry-level gameplay. Even if you need to collect a group for this, the game will die. That's exactly what worries me. I would not want SB to suffer the fate of other projects that succumbed to the pressure of supporters of one of the factions.

You are right about the issue of balance. Give those who fly one automatic turrets and missiles. For a good fight.

If we talk about Eve online, then there the issue of content for each category of players was well balanced (at least a couple of years ago).
And each player himself chose which way to go.
Even if they introduce WT, I will find ways to piss off those who will try to camp me. This is also a game. But not all players will accept it. And online is not so high.

Again. I really don't want the game to die turning into a PVP sandbox where even those who crave piu piu will become uninteresting.

Being an unarmed miner is a choice. The game doesn't require you to go out and mine in an unarmed ship.

 

[Colonkin]

Being an unarmed miner is a choice. The game doesn't require you to go out and mine in an unarmed ship.

Arming the miner will not change anything. During the flight, it is not possible to view the surroundings. There is no radar. And a mining ship is by no means a fighter, both in size and in acceleration dynamics.
Now there is actually a struggle of minds. The miner's main defense is his cunning and prudence. Will he be able to stealthily fly somewhere.
WT's suggestions for capital ships are a laziness suggestion. Because nothing will have to be done to track someone. And as always, the newcomers will suffer the most.