Make PVP optional - READ first

[XenoCow]

It occurs to me that Starbase will have a potentially HUGE playerbase.

And as far as we know, sandbox mode isn't in the planning, so for those who want to play without fear of being hunted down constantly or looking over their shoulder, allow players to take themselves out of PvP, by toggling some type of change in their status. But the game doesn't have to focus entirely on PvP as a core feature, it can be modified to allow PvP to be optional.

So how does Frozenbyte going about doing this? Here's a few steps.

1.) Allow players to change their status from Hostile, to Non-Hostile. Being Non-Hostile means they can't be damaged by player ships or weapons.
2.) Allow players to change their statuses ONLY at stations, not in the middle of space, so they can't attack someone, then switch status to escape retaliation.
3.) Give incentives for even non-combat players to stay in Hostile mode, by increasing their rewards for their mining or salvage. Perhaps a 3x or higher price payout at stations so they are willing to take the risk and engage in combat if need be, to protect their haul.
4.) Keep safe zones, for newer players or those who aren't as financially motivated.
5.) Make some extremely valuable and rare ores, only possible to be mined, in a Hostile status.

So I'm already hearing some natural questions, many from those who aren't even going to read the entire post.

Q: If people can just put themselves on Non-Hostile then no one would do PvP right?
A: No. There will always be players out there looking to pillage and kill. The rewards for even miners and explorers to stay In PvP mode gives these PvP players targets to hunt. This is why you offer players, incentives and rewards for risking to be in PvP mode.

Q: Why should players be given a choice?
A: Because it increases the options for players. Not everyone wants to engage in PvP for time reasons or just personal preferences. Giving players an option, means that some players who want to play safe, aren't forced into become targets when all they wanted was just some peaceful (and less profitable) mining. Choice never hurts playerbases, limiting their choices will results in people leaving because they're constantly being harassed by PvPers.

Q: What is to stop a PvPer from abusing the system and then putting themselves on non-hostile right after killing someone?
A: Make the toggling system only changeable in a station, not just a safe zone, therefore it takes a long time to go back. That way it is a serious choice and decision to make before a player embarks on their task. A PvPer will be locked onto that status when they leave a station, and a non-Hostile player can't attack anyone else even if he sees an easy kill.

Again, I ask Frozenbyte to consider this as an option, because it will give more options to players. Giving players a choice, and sometimes the chance to make slower money but safer, an option.

Hey there Venixer,

I'm sorry that you're getting so much flak for your idea. I think that some of the other members of this forum need to remember that you're human too and that just because an idea is proposed doesn't mean that it's going to be in the game as it is posted or at all. I hope you have a good day and feel good enough to post more ideas in the future. You clearly are thoughtful and rational and I'd like to hear what else you have to say.

Sincerely,
XenoCow

 

[Recatek]

Risk and loss are fundamental to the game's economy. Without any risk of losing anything, and with only limited potential to gain, there's no game loop once you've reached a certain point. Hitting asteroids isn't particularly challenging or interesting, but hunting for asteroids while also staying vigilant and prepared to be jumped by pirates is much more of a game.

 

[JeffGoldblum]

I made a whole forum account to say this idea is bad and would kill the interest for many groups. The game you want already exists, go play roblox kiddo there's no pvp there.

 

[Yarns]

Giving players the option to play this as a pve game ruins the risk reward factor and ultimately will affect the overall feel/core concept of the game. The economy, gameplay loop and interest of many players will die if this game just holds your hand and gives you too many safety nets.

 

[MrFaul]

above agreed

 

[Joshua]

I get what you are getting at, I technically like the Idea, however the game is not a free for all. The game is faction based, and if you want to be attacked less you can join a faction like Kingdom or Empire. This Idea just does not make sense for a faction based MMO.

 

[Joshua]

If you want to ruin your game...follow this kids ideas. If you want your game to fail like new world will...follow this kids ideas. If you want to actually develop a full sandbox space MMO...don't follow this kids ideas.

That seems a little mean to be honest, this person was very intelligent and no child. Be mindful of the things you say this is just a friendly discussion about possibilities. There is no need to be potentially offensive.

 

[BadgerBadger]

Also if your in deep space what are the chances a pirate is going to randomly come across you

I imaging if you have a transmitter ON they might find you via that, else they might have to follow you from when you leave a station, or chance encounter sighting you.

 

[Kappinski]

1.) Allow players to change their status from Hostile, to Non-Hostile. Being Non-Hostile means they can't be damaged by player ships or weapons.
2.) Allow players to change their statuses ONLY at stations, not in the middle of space, so they can't attack someone, then switch status to escape retaliation.
3.) Give incentives for even non-combat players to stay in Hostile mode, by increasing their rewards for their mining or salvage. Perhaps a 3x or higher price payout at stations so they are willing to take the risk and engage in combat if need be, to protect their haul.
4.) Keep safe zones, for newer players or those who aren't as financially motivated.
5.) Make some extremely valuable and rare ores, only possible to be mined, in a Hostile status.

My thoughts on that:
1.) Instead of only Safe zone & Hostile zone (rest of the game) add a third one. The neutral zone.
2.) Allow players to change their statuses by themselve ONLY in neutral zones. And only let them opt-IN to PvP which marks you as hostile. If you attack another hostile in neutral while being neutral yourself you opt-in automatically into PvP and can only change back ... (see point 4)
3.) Traveling into a hostile zone players opt-in automatically into PvP and stay like that until ... (see point 4)
4.) Let people only opt-out of PvP at a space station and for a good amount of credits. Let owners set the price (come on you will love that )
5.) Keep safe zones, for newer players or those who aren't as financially motivated.
6.) Make some extremely valuable and rare ores, only possible to be mined, in a Hostile zone.


1.) A neutral zone would add a meaningful decision for some players they could opt-in any time if they see a hostile but they would make themselves vulnerable and getting rid of the "hostile" tag costs money and time because you have to travel to a space station. And on your way back you can be attacked. Want to mine valueable ores in hostile territory? Good luck flying back to a station in neutral territory while everyone can attack you. But the most important thing here.

2.) Making opt-in easier and opt-out only possible at certain locations Could lead to more people opted in than opted out. You can stay opted out forever if you want but have to stay at least in neutral and safe zones. Once you cross the border of a hostile zone you are opted in no matter what.

3.) High risk, high reward

4.) That is the juicy part. You can make a profit of carebears by keeping them happy. Take care of your carebears. It is a win win.

5.) I think we all agree on that. Do we? ^^

6.) I think we agree on that aswell

How big these zones are and where they will be? I don't know. Let's think about the bare minimum of that. The neutral zone covers the safe zone as an outer shell or another layer. After the neutral zone we get what we have right now 100%. But it is another step to ease out the learning curve and get people started with PvP.
It doesn't take away anything from the general experience most of you care about. It just adds another layer of depth to the system that could be interesting.

 

[Kodey]

Even with the new proposed idea, I think that it’s just a bad idea, there should always be some kind of tension when you’re leaving the safe zone to mine. If you’re really afraid of people attacking you, add guns to your ship or get a convoy. The passive mode/ neutral zone may add a layer of depth, but it takes away a lot more layers.

 

[five]

It occurs to me that Starbase will have a potentially HUGE playerbase.

And as far as we know, sandbox mode isn't in the planning, so for those who want to play without fear of being hunted down constantly or looking over their shoulder, allow players to take themselves out of PvP, by toggling some type of change in their status. But the game doesn't have to focus entirely on PvP as a core feature, it can be modified to allow PvP to be optional.

So how does Frozenbyte going about doing this? Here's a few steps.

1.) Allow players to change their status from Hostile, to Non-Hostile. Being Non-Hostile means they can't be damaged by player ships or weapons.
2.) Allow players to change their statuses ONLY at stations, not in the middle of space, so they can't attack someone, then switch status to escape retaliation.
3.) Give incentives for even non-combat players to stay in Hostile mode, by increasing their rewards for their mining or salvage. Perhaps a 3x or higher price payout at stations so they are willing to take the risk and engage in combat if need be, to protect their haul.
4.) Keep safe zones, for newer players or those who aren't as financially motivated.
5.) Make some extremely valuable and rare ores, only possible to be mined, in a Hostile status.

So I'm already hearing some natural questions, many from those who aren't even going to read the entire post.

Q: If people can just put themselves on Non-Hostile then no one would do PvP right?
A: No. There will always be players out there looking to pillage and kill. The rewards for even miners and explorers to stay In PvP mode gives these PvP players targets to hunt. This is why you offer players, incentives and rewards for risking to be in PvP mode.

Q: Why should players be given a choice?
A: Because it increases the options for players. Not everyone wants to engage in PvP for time reasons or just personal preferences. Giving players an option, means that some players who want to play safe, aren't forced into become targets when all they wanted was just some peaceful (and less profitable) mining. Choice never hurts playerbases, limiting their choices will results in people leaving because they're constantly being harassed by PvPers.

Q: What is to stop a PvPer from abusing the system and then putting themselves on non-hostile right after killing someone?
A: Make the toggling system only changeable in a station, not just a safe zone, therefore it takes a long time to go back. That way it is a serious choice and decision to make before a player embarks on their task. A PvPer will be locked onto that status when they leave a station, and a non-Hostile player can't attack anyone else even if he sees an easy kill.

Again, I ask Frozenbyte to consider this as an option, because it will give more options to players. Giving players a choice, and sometimes the chance to make slower money but safer, an option.

Here is my problem with this idea: It limits what you can do in the universe drasticallly. Humans have a tendency to find the safest and most efficient whilst not the most fun way of farming and abusing it till it gets patched. And this looks exactly like that kind of abusable mechanic. Let's say I have cargo ship and I wanna make extremely much revenue whilste being save. I will buy the item that gives me the most money, when i sell it at another station. Why would I risk being killed? You would have to give atleast a x10 multiplier on your income if you would want it to be an option, but with such high rewards for not being in the safe mode you would earn by far to much money. I really like the idea you put together but I just see a major risk for gameplay diversity if this was to be implemented. Miners and Cargo Haulers would either have a good safe income or a major risky income. The whole universe is supposed to be community driven, the economy and everything else. If we take away that option, what is the point in being a pirate? I think the game would kill itself if it was to implement this mechanic because: Why go be a Pirate when no one or maximum 1 out of 10 pilots does not have have non hostile mode? Why go look for Pirates or take jobs to protect and escort cargo haulers, when there is no need for it? Step-by-Step all PvP people would have nothing to do and go towards other games such as Star Citizen. In Star Citizen there is no non hostile mode. Either you risk going alone and be intercepted or you take company to protect you. Some people even give up cargo space to take small fighters with them that can protect them. This all is why I am against this mechanic being implemented into the game.

 

[Narial]

I don't think adding a toggle is a good idea. My reasoning for this is it would cut into some companies purpose and bottom line. Why hire protection companies when you can just toggle pvp off. I hope the game to be a living system, danger is a necessity for that. Giving in to single players wants will just kill political possibilities. I come from Fallout 76, its common for proponents against pvp to say "There are other games for that" I hate that so I will not say it. That community has also gutted pvp forcing those that do want to do it to become annoying trolls. I hope for a full pvp game where people are forced to group up and political intrigue is editable.