Crisis of Conflict: Is there a reason to go to war in Starbase?

PopeUrban

Veteran endo
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
140
#41
I wonder after this if focusing on gas stations is worth it anymore, after a long time the gas stations will become unprofitable to operate, sure you can move, but moving every 3 months can be very annoying. But yes raise the gas prices and have less people buying gas, but the problem with this is gas stations near large asteroid field will benefit greatly since more people will come here since there will probably cheaper gas prices. Yes this creates competition, but I m restating my earlier point to what cost. Have large wars over some large asteroid field just to be able to have a cheap and affordable gas station there, sure but you could possibly waste more trying to defend it than earn profits from it. Sure move gas stations every time and your other gas station is useless since no one wants to buy from it. I know there is trillions of asteroids but trying to fight over each one will waste them pretty quickly. Hope someone will have a solution to not raise prices to almost unaffordable buying from it and not having to keep moving where your gas stations are located.

The less gas there is locally, the more valuable your gas station is as long as someone needs to use it to get somewhere they're going. Fuel, as is the case with most commodities in MMO economies doesn't generally require much in the way of persistant infrastructure. The initial boom of nearby rich deposits ends up bankrolling your setup and from that point its just refining and efficient pilot management. You assign mining ships to the most priftable mining sites and hauling ships to distribute because that gas is pretty much linearly worth more the further away it is from a source of gas.

This is precisely how the IRL oil market works. Most of the world's vehicles run on fuel that is refines near a deposit and then shipped extremely long distances. As long as there is a persistant need for fuel, and a generally understood average travel distance those gas stops are going to find it very hard to be unprofitable.

Sure, on a long enough time scale you might find a station worth abandoning because its not on "the highway" any more, but for the most part if you're doing your job right you've made enough money on it you can afford to abandon it for greener pastures.

That's far preferable to an econ game where the first person to stake claim to a persistant moon is essentially set up for life as it creates opportunities for a combination of prospecting and pvp to control resources rather than pvp alone being the sole determiner of economic power.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
38
#42
一般来说,战争的原因有很多种:
1、重要价值的物资(资源)
2、价值观冲突
3、外交事件的升级
4、领土争夺
5、种族主义冲突
6、意识形态冲突
7、政变、经济危机
8、某种权力的争霸,国内个派系的斗争
9、战略地区争夺
10、未来生存权利的争夺
11、某个领域的主动权的争夺

战争服从于政治,当一切政治手段,尤其是外交手段无法解决双方的矛盾的时候,往往会寻求战争。这就是战争产生的原因,是人类群体矛盾的最原始也是最有效的解决方法。
在Starbase游戏里面,受限于飞船的速度,它飞得实在是太慢了。并且存在着大气阻力,这使得很多战术不得不参考一战前的海战。一般来说,在这个游戏里面很难发生战争,因为战争获得的利益比支出要少很多,这是很不划算的行为。某些海盗企图盗取物资,只会被派系联盟针对性处理。派系之间也不会因为资源而产生争夺,小行星带的陨石数量足够我们一段时间的使用,而且宇宙是无限的。
我们作为玩家,生活在现实生活里,所以我们已经在脑子里面形成了对于政治的价值观,这会左右我们在游戏里面的决策。
我更倾向于游戏初期,派系之间互相合作发展科技,建造巨型工程(高速公路)。

In general, there are many causes of war:

1.、Material (resources) of important value

2、Conflict of values

3.、Escalation of diplomatic events

4、Territory contention

5、Racist conflict

6 、 Ideological conflict

7、Coups, economic crisis

8.、Hegemony of some kind of power, domestic faction struggle

9 、 Struggle for strategic areas

10、Fighting for future survival rights

11 、 Struggle for initiative in a certain field



War is subordinate to politics. When all political means, especially diplomatic means, cannot resolve the conflicts between the two sides, war is often sought. This is the reason for the war, and it is the most primitive and effective solution to the contradictions of the human group.

In the Starbase game, due to the speed of the spacecraft, it was flying too slowly. And there is atmospheric resistance, which makes many tactics have to refer to the naval battle before World War I. Generally speaking, it is difficult to have a war in this game, because the benefits obtained from the war are much less than the expenditure, which is very uneconomical. Attempts by some pirates to steal supplies will only be targeted by faction alliances. Factions will not compete for resources because the number of meteorites in the asteroid belt is enough for us to use for a period of time, and the universe is infinite.

We, as players, live in real life, so we have formed values for politics in our minds, which will shape our decisions in the game.

I prefer the early stage of the game, the factions cooperate with each other to develop technology and build huge projects (highways).
 

Caddrel

Learned-to-turn-off-magboots endo
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
46
#43
My experience with games where the major factions fight each other for no reason other than "just because" is that the 20th such "war" is no different from the 19th or 18th. After a while people just have no more motivation to log on and participate because the outcome changes nothing and the game has no actual stakes.
In all my time playing PvP MMOs roughly half of all wars are a result of sensible territory, security, or roleplaying agendas. The other half are a direct result of rich people just being bored of not being in a war.

Never underestimate the willingness of people playing an MMO to be horrible to each other just because they can. Never underestimate the willingness of people to smash everything another player owns just to hear them cry. Never underestimate the ability of a large faction to annex more territory just because it can, regardless of its ability to maintain it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the same drivers for armed conflict are present in video games as they are in reality. In reality people don't start wars just because they like being at war. In video games people do it all the time.
In my view, these two posts cover a lot of important points. I would like to add something to Recatek's post.

People fight in games because the games are fun, and the fighting is fun. There's no resource scarcity in Battlefield or Counterstrike other than only one team or player can "win".

If people stop playing the game because they no longer find it fun, that's fine. I don't think game designers should aim to keep players locked into playing their game when the players no longer find it enjoyable or fun. Even if it's a detriment to the game's "health" or the number of people playing.

I'm not really taking on resource scarcity either way, as it's a very complex issue, but players definitely don't need reasons to fight each other.
 

Recatek

Meat Popsicle
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
286
#44
People fight in games because the games are fun, and the fighting is fun. There's no resource scarcity in Battlefield or Counterstrike other than only one team or player can "win".
There is an objective though, something that forces people to meet at a single point and fight each other.

Also keep in mind those games also don't make you grind for your equipment before you can do any fighting. You level up and upgrade, but you always have at least something to shoot with and drive around. PvP MMOs ask you to put in some degree of "work" before you can engage in the fun combat part -- mining, crafting, building ships and stations, and so on. If all of that "work" is being done just to evaporate in an inconsequential PvP match, then you have stiff competition from the games that don't ask you to put in so much for what you're getting out. For me personally I'm willing to put in the "work" for MMO PvP because of persistence and the notion that what I'm doing has consequences. I live for the campaign in these games, where sequences of fights gradually build towards towards something over weeks or months, painting the map with my name on it and lending weight and value to my actions.
 

MixCTATNCT

Active endo
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
30
#45
I'm sure the problem is minor. Take for example a game I played a couple of years ago. Life of feudal. There is no motivation for why the showdown between these or those began. Yes, some are at war, because on previous servers they were particularly fiercely at war and all that. This is a tradition. But new ones also find reasons. So even if the story ends up starting a war because of the forest because of the mountains, a man showed an axe. And not just showed but also ... it doesn't matter what you tied it to, it will also be OK because, doesn't everyone care?
 

PopeUrban

Veteran endo
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
140
#46
There is an objective though, something that forces people to meet at a single point and fight each other.

Also keep in mind those games also don't make you grind for your equipment before you can do any fighting. You level up and upgrade, but you always have at least something to shoot with and drive around. PvP MMOs ask you to put in some degree of "work" before you can engage in the fun combat part -- mining, crafting, building ships and stations, and so on. If all of that "work" is being done just to evaporate in an inconsequential PvP match, then you have stiff competition from the games that don't ask you to put in so much for what you're getting out. For me personally I'm willing to put in the "work" for MMO PvP because of persistence and the notion that what I'm doing has consequences. I live for the campaign in these games, where sequences of fights gradually build towards towards something over weeks or months, painting the map with my name on it and lending weight and value to my actions.
The campaign is absolutely what separates a pvp mmo from other competitive forms of gaming. Its also why pvp mmos don't work as esports.

Boredom itself does in fact account for the originator of campaigns in these systems. Basically, any organization fat and docile enough to get bored with success also doesn't have to grind to fund a war. They're burning surplus. To them it doesn't matter if its inconsequential.

Its a deliberate strategy for large PvP entities to be at war as often as they can afford. War drives engagement and retention, these are buzzwords commonly reserved for developer posts but they're equally important for managing the kind of large player guild or nation that typified the top end of sandbox MMOs. Players that get bored quit. You keep them from getting bored by giving them not only things to do, but enemies to rally against, trash talk to, and meme on. You give them a chance to be part of something that's only possible for organizations of your scale in a major mobilized effort. You give them spectacle and stories, and that keeps them logging in, and keeps them logging in for you.

Economics determine the ability to go to war in the sandbox, and the likelihood of retreat, but the WILLINGNESS to go to war is decoupled from those economics. In general, organizations that can afford to war will be at war not because war is necessary but because it is fun. Those organizations will stop going to war when war becomes too expensive or too boring.
 

Cavilier210

Master endo
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
576
#47
depopulating the belt will be tough, just going by the 10 years for 1% mined metric, the safezone itself will take multiple years to scratch and without knowing the size and distribution of rare resource nodes, you won't really know where to look unless the nodes are fairly large (i.e. months of dedicated megacorp mining) and allow a node, vein, or run of resource to be contested and fought over- having large pockets everywhere but dispersed might actually encourage fighting given space is big and finding things is hard, but that would mean most fights over resources would require watching the market and sleuthing to find out where a corp is getting all its shiny stuff from. Any corp that manages to become independent of the market could relocate and virtually disappear.

Iirc, Ultima online thought this would work for mobs, and players annihilated the entire population of mobs in a tiny fraction of expected time. If its possible to purge the ring of roids, we will definitely accomplish it and at a faster pace than the devs anticipate.
 

Otac

Well-known endo
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
60
#48
I think it's possible to separate the distribution of rare resources and make them scattered and rare
 

Burnside

Master endo
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
308
#50
Iirc, Ultima online thought this would work for mobs, and players annihilated the entire population of mobs in a tiny fraction of expected time. If its possible to purge the ring of roids, we will definitely accomplish it and at a faster pace than the devs anticipate.
The referenced math is something like 1 million players mining 250 average asteroids (back when those asteroids were smaller than 50m) per day.
1) we probably won't see 100k players, let alone a million, so the average per day count goes up to ~2500 asteroids per player per day
2) max asteroid size has been increased from a few dozen meters to 500-1km, so the average size is way up
3) mining out 250 avg asteroids a day, let alone 2.5k, is actually a massive investment of time and probably requires a player to develop a mining machine

Ultima was a simulated ecology inside of a limited world, while the belt is technically a limited world it's also insanely massive, like several surface-areas of the Earth massive. We aren't likely to run out regardless of what we do to exploit every possible game mechanic.
 

AlexiyOne

Well-known endo
Joined
Feb 3, 2020
Messages
85
#51
Iirc, Ultima online thought this would work for mobs, and players annihilated the entire population of mobs in a tiny fraction of expected time. If its possible to purge the ring of roids, we will definitely accomplish it and at a faster pace than the devs anticipate.
My point exactly, the game should have events to respawn asteroids, I don know Frozenbyte, maybe they appear out of thin air when no player is nearby to see and just thinks that asteroid is from the distant galaxy far far away, sounds a lot like a movie;)
 

Cavilier210

Master endo
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
576
#52
My point exactly, the game should have events to respawn asteroids, I don know Frozenbyte, maybe they appear out of thin air when no player is nearby to see and just thinks that asteroid is from the distant galaxy far far away, sounds a lot like a movie;)

I don't think they need to respawn asteroids. I'm saying their expectation of depletion may be off.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
136
#54
The resource problem can be solved. Use the mobile carrier to follow the resource belt for mining and manufacturing, and leave the space station for trade along the way. Finally, the space station will circle the star ring.
 

Huursa

Well-known endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
53
#55
Good video and I agree on most of these points. Hopefully the nonuniform distribution of resources will provide at least enough of a starting point for territory to be meaningful and worth fighting over. Starting wars "just because" isn't going to be enough of a motivation over time if there are no stakes and nothing to gain from it. Otherwise, there's no real value to holding one area or another, and with the play space as large as it is, there isn't much practical reason to take someone else's spot when you can easily carve out your own.

Might be interested in this video as well, even if it's for D&D, but it does expand on reasons to have wars in games.
Amigo theres more reasons to wipe someone than total amount of tribes, like if u get too close to our station yo tribe is gettin wiped just because of that.
 

Quinc

Well-known endo
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
56
#56
I think adding "something to fight for" is good but not completely necessary. I think there is enough of a pro-PvP mindset that many will fight just for fun. In EVE online it is common practice to send out "roams" i.e. raiding parties looking for trouble just for fun. On the other hand it is clear that the massive battles that EVE is known for happen for a different reason, and there's the worry that the 'different reason' might be absent from Starbase.

Most PvP games do NOT give you an in game reward for winning other than some recognition. Of course there are some that do, but these are usually labelled "progression systems" as they give you a sense of progress between individual matches. This adds another layer of appeal that doesn't necessarily conflict with the fun and possible sense of victory (though many argue that the sense of progression is really just a human skinner box). To my knowledge the multiplayer games that have a progression system make a point to make it so that progressing gives a reward that feels significant, and can be seen in your next match but doesn't grant an older player a massive advantage over a newer player. StarCraft II has you earn XP, but the rewards for leveling up are strictly cosmetic. The original video briefly mentioned Planetside II and when I played that and watched video guides the guides were almost defensive in insisting that the starting guns were just as good as the guns you progress towards. Having more guns is good, experienced players can get one that matches their playstyle, but the actual advantage isn't huge. Part of having the fight go on forever is having it always feel fair. If it doesn't feel fair you get a vocal minority of veterans and a lot of newbies who try it and then abandon it. Over time the developers grow increasingly panicked as they feel they need to keep both but don't know how.

In Starbase the "progression system" is of course collecting resources and building things, and the original posts complaint seems to be essentially that combat is not necessarily a part of that. Theoretically every group of players could just mine peacefully. So the most obvious 'solution' is making so you have to conquer a desired territory before you start mining.

The reason why that wouldn't work is that in one case the progression offers a minor advantage and in the other it offers a major advantage in future battles. It is a problem that has come up on these forums that perhaps one faction will dominate everything. One part of this issue is that if winning a battle gives them a lasting advantage in future battles they could grow their advantage exponentially. With a specific high-value region the group that first manages to secure the area long enough to built stations gets both a defender's advantage and a wealth advantage. These advantages only go away when somebody without them manages to win, which by the definition of "advantage" is going to be rare. To a certain extent this is inevitable but there are ways to reduce the effect. My point being that giving people more reasons to fight is good, but you can't have that be "Fight hard and win today, and you won't have to fight hard to win tomorrow!" It is certainly an incentive but not one the developers should ever intentionally deploy. Even the biggest factions should have to fight hard everyday. One victory should not improve your chances in the next battle. I would even borrow from 'Mario Kart' and say that the faction who is ahead should be the ones who are at the biggest risk of getting "blue-shelled". For example, having more stations would make it easier to lose one (relative to the size of the stations and population). They would complain endlessly, but it is worth considering a system where each conquest makes the next one more difficult, assuming you can derive a lot of incentive elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Recatek

Meat Popsicle
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
286
#57
In EVE online it is common practice to send out "roams" i.e. raiding parties looking for trouble just for fun.
EVE also has a number of systems that make this viable, fun, and rewarding: killmails, tackling, scanning and tracking mechanics, and fixed travel lanes via mapped warpgates, among others. It also has mechanics that force people out into finite and predictable places where others can find them and create fights.

Most PvP games do NOT give you an in game reward for winning other than some recognition.
Recognition is a mechanic that is supported by those games, even if only a little bit. Even if Starbase just had some area in space somewhere that broadcast the name of whoever "owned" it, that would be enough to cause conflict for recognition, at least for a little while.
 

Venombrew

Master endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
369
#58
well its "world pvp" and in games like this, the act of pvp alone with no rewards outside killing a player is seriously a big thing. World of Warcraft through vanilla only had 3 battlegrounds and no arena(arena came out in BC), and world pvp with no actual reward outside stats, was the most common form of pvp. Honestly it never changed over the years til the end of cataclysm with the xrealm shit they pulled. Its the same with any survival game out there, Rust, Ark, New Z, and even deadside where the reward is pvp itself. Sure your opponent may drop something nice(MAY but most of those players set their gear before going into a game, so w/e you drop, they probably can easily purcase with ingame currency), but most of these games(other than wow) don't even have a combat statistic recorder(Player Kills, Deaths to Players, Accuracy, etc.) where as Starbase has this and much more, statistic stat wise. So for majority of your FPS gamers, combat statistics is all that matters to them anyway. After your leveled and you got all the guns and perks unlocked, most COD players only care about their stats. Which starbase with the CV has done pretty well so far in development that they have shown us.

Then you want to add in the factor of theft without real gain. There are tons and tons of players who enjoy nothing more than the chaos a game like this brings over profit. Some players would much rather watch your ship explode and burn than trying to take it entact for profit. Some folks call those guys griefers but in reality they are just pvpers, maybe with a little RP flash thrown in. Then there is griefers! Guys who just assault and attack anyone and everyone, not for pvp, not for profit, but the enjoyment of making others suffer. Those kind of players will cause a rally of other players just out of shear frustration, people did it all the time in World's Adrift against the guild Join or Die. And that always causes grudges and wars that go on for a long time, both side fueling the other.

Then there is the mega player factions who will be opening up their own stations in space, moons, and planets with the numbers to get shit done. The nomad, thief, raider, pirate style players(which are a lot of) will always view this as opportunities to attack, since they will have stocked warehouses with ships, weapons, material, fuel, cargo and mining ships coming and going, conveys of station parts and materials. Hence this will also cause wars between the companies being rolled and the groups doing the robbing.

Plus tons of profit is made for games like this through pvp warring. Archeage is a great example, since it too has two main factions and a pirate faction, it also has player ran splinter factions that fight and war over territories. Because territories in AA like starbase are profits, for example a station near a belt that doesn't take much to get back and forth from. So in AA, every week and every month at the warring times, the market place goods on the AH will skyrocket on prices for materials pertaining to siege weapons and vehicles, health and buff pots for pvp, and pretty much anything else viewed as needed to win a war. That will be the same with Starbase, wars equal ships being damaged and destroyed, so either credits or materials to fix it(and in the 20th patch notes they talk about a player ingame market/auction house). Salvaged and abandoned ships after the fight can be utilized for credits or parts on your ship(cannons that are good to use that are better than yours, or at least good enough to sell). Claiming an area of space where your company/faction has its trade routes, material routes, etc will be better maintained by larger warring factions, making it less likely that pirates will risk their ship in area flooded with people who would aid the one they targeted.

Once there are many player stations out in the universe, tax will come into play a lot. People fighting over goods and area can sell their gains at various stations with different set tax. So if a company has a station far out near a belt, they could set the tax a little high on the goods but would be better to turn in there and not risk a long flight, where the buyer then will setup full cargo ships of the goods and run them into a place with a very low tax rate to gain even more off his buy.

lot of reasons to go to war in this game such as profit, territory, revenge, justice, but ultimately because people will be able to and some people just love to pvp.
 
Joined
May 30, 2020
Messages
2
#59
If it is like most other games, you'll have groups causing conflicts just because they can. Travelling X-hours to conduct a raid will not be an issue for some, in fact, it will be their mantra. One corp I knew of (in another game) had the phrase "Gotta find 'em to grind 'em" meaning that you have to get out and explore and locate resource/adversary in order to take the next step (create an outpost, launch an attack to take the existing structure, etc.).
 
Top