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

[pavvvel]

Don't agree with this at all honestly. Some games do it alright but MMOs tend to lean more towards structured PvP (e.g. territory control and sieges). Ambush PvP is often entirely lopsided and tends to provide an unsatisfying fight for the attacker and drive the defender away from the game entirely. Definitely don't think going that route would be healthy for Starbase.

I didn't see anything constructive in your post

 

[Kelmoir]

You say, a 'magic' passive short range sensor would make it impossible to board sneakily.
Well, this means, no one can sneakily board a miner and only get noticed in the very moment, when you kill the pilot.
At the same time you want Sensors, that will only work for you, when you are hunting minders, because you want even rangefinders to blind their sensors.
That is not pvp, nor healthy, as Recatek pointed out.
Boarding is a very diffecult thing, anyways. Boarding usually only works on very slow targets, that can't (anymore) defend against it. Well, it was a bit different in the age of sail, But that is far gone.
And even a 5 km 'magic' short range sensor, that would detect evrything still won't protect you from stealth railgun fighters, as the Railguns outrange those 5 km easily. And even when not: the miner would likely start to run, but getting moving pointing away from a roid, etc takes tme. Getting into range of your guns should be easy enough. And since you are chasing the miner, your hits would tear through his thrusters, making it impossible for the miner, to run effectively.
But which side gets the intel advantage is always diffecult to balance.

And I also get the same feeling as chaosrifle, that it seems, that FB is trimming pvp to only happen around station seiges. Which is too boring, and actually remove the need for sensors.

 

[[TAC] NASA]

And I also get the same feeling as chaosrifle, that it seems, that FB is trimming pvp to only happen around station seiges. Which is too boring, and actually remove the need for sensors.

I feel like by the sheer virtue of FB adding sensors that can detect others, they are adding a dynamic PvP element that isn't the gate.
Although I agree on the fact that sensors might not be very useful during a siege but I don't see how that discounts their value outside of sieges.

 

[Kelmoir]

I feel like by the sheer virtue of FB adding sensors that can detect others, they are adding a dynamic PvP element that isn't the gate.
Although I agree on the fact that sensors might not be very useful during a siege but I don't see how that discounts their value outside of sieges.

Yes, you are totally right, And even as a Miner, I do love the Idea of being able to scan for other players out there, especially when I am in some mischievous mood.
Just the only thing that scares me a little, is a) the calculation of the emissions of any ship, when factoring in direction, noise, Plates, absorption from the environment, ...
And b) 'never trust a client': Where to do these calculations, since if doing it locally, would make sense for me. But then your client knows, that there is some other ship out there, which might lead cheaty folks to aquire and utillize that knowledge in ways FB won't like in the slightest.

 

[J.D.]

I don't know how they are going to make stealth, but I speculate that it might have something to do with materials. AKA changing materials of plates near your reactor should maybe help?

Also take in to account that someone will have to program these sensors to work as they most likely will be very complex. And to clarify: I am NOT talking about HUD / UI sensors. I am talking about something that needs to be displayed in your ship and that can be very difficult. Most likely it will take hours, if not tens to make a really good sensor system that might distinguish a ship with the 360 sensor outside of visual range.

Also: a large number of people will have no idea how it might work till someone makes a neat document with the many lines of code needed. Also interpreting the thing will take skill. It wont be "I can see you 200 miles away". More like: "I see an abnormal spike that I can barely distinguish from the background noise from the shitty slowly updating screen. The ship is probably under 10 kilometers away"

With stealth ships you could probably make the range of detection even smaller.

Combat logging may be an issue, I give you that, but I believe that it should be solved separately.

Also take in to account, that people will start trusting their sensors more and when you have a good stealth-ship, they wont expect someone to be able to sneak within visual range of them, granting you the element of surprise.

From earlier discussions in main discord, Lauri has described radiation tech as being a way to pick up radiation, ofc. Radiation is given off by your generator, while running, of course.

In terms of stealth, there is a material called Lukium. That material literally cases that radiation signature, rendering you stealth to would be radation sensors. You would just need to place your generator in a lukium shell inside your ship... Unless they plan to change this. thats how its supposed to work, so far.

 

[ChaosRifle]

the Railguns outrange those 5 km easily

Not sure they do, on paper FB claims they do, but they also claim laser cannons are ~3km.. Turns out that they actually have 1km range.. I have not tested railguns actual range, but from watching fights, I would wager it too is probably only 1km right now. Unsure if bug.

I don't see how that discounts their value outside of sieges.

Because of the speed mechanics and the increasing number of safezones with station clusters, the likelyhood of even finding someone not in a safezone shrinks massively, and even more when capital ships are arround. Can't shoot what is magically invulnerable or makes it to a safe zone before you get to them.

which might lead cheaty folks to aquire and utillize that knowledge in ways FB won't like in the slightest.

FB's anticheat partially trusts the client. From my knowledge they have an anticheat server that performs the same actions as the player1 client every so often to randomly check up on their calculations and keep them in check. Furthermore, when arround other players, those players also perform some calculations every now and then to also ensure that player1's calculations are within the realm of possibility and not cheating. My understanding is that when there is a discrepancy, it triggers further investigations by the server to ensure they are not cheating, as well as probably flagging the player as a player of interest. If the servers determine their client is behaving outside of normal perameters they would be auto-banned. This of course works both ways for every client in the area.

 

[pavvvel]

You say, a 'magic' passive short range sensor would make it impossible to board sneakily.
Well, this means, no one can sneakily board a miner and only get noticed in the very moment, when you kill the pilot.
At the same time you want Sensors, that will only work for you, when you are hunting minders, because you want even rangefinders to blind their sensors.
That is not pvp, nor healthy, as Recatek pointed out.

This is a complete lie.
What prevents the miner from distracting himself from the asteroid and working with active sensors?
What prevents him from taking a friend with him who will work with active sensors?
What prevents him from taking two friends with him: one on a warship, and the other on a ship equipped with a large number of active sensors?
... This is called game interaction, socialization and training.This is the opposite of casual!

Boarding a miner is pvp. Killing an unarmed player is pvp. Even 10 warships against 1 unarmed is an adequate pvp.
The fact that the miner died is 100% his fault: He did not monitor the situation, he made a weak ship, he did not agree with other players about protection and convoy. It's his fault. And this is 100% pvp.
Such situations, when someone kills a miner, should generate a new gameplay: training, preparation, socialization, association with other players. Instead, you want passive sensors, which, combined with safe zones, fleet carriers and endless cheap stations, will simply kill the gameplay.
It is also a lie that the absence of passive sensors will benefit only hunters. What if I search and sneak up on those who prey on others? For example, the hunter ship disguised itself in the fog. I noticed him with the help of active sensors and crept up from behind, bolted the warhead from the rocket to the nozzle of his engine?)) Passive sensors will no allow it - gameplay killing again and again!

 

[[TAC] NASA]

This is a complete lie.
What prevents the miner from distracting himself from the asteroid and working with active sensors?
What prevents him from taking a friend with him who will work with active sensors?
What prevents him from taking two friends with him: one on a warship, and the other on a ship equipped with a large number of active sensors?
... This is called game interaction, socialization and training.This is the opposite of casual!

Boarding a miner is pvp. Killing an unarmed player is pvp. Even 10 warships against 1 unarmed is an adequate pvp.
The fact that the miner died is 100% his fault: He did not monitor the situation, he made a weak ship, he did not agree with other players about protection and convoy. It's his fault. And this is 100% pvp.
Such situations, when someone kills a miner, should generate a new gameplay: training, preparation, socialization, association with other players. Instead, you want passive sensors, which, combined with safe zones, fleet carriers and endless cheap stations, will simply kill the gameplay.
It is also a lie that the absence of passive sensors will benefit only hunters. What if I search and sneak up on those who prey on others? For example, the hunter ship disguised itself in the fog. I noticed him with the help of active sensors and crept up from behind, bolted the warhead from the rocket to the nozzle of his engine?)) Passive sensors will no allow it - gameplay killing again and again!

I firmly believe that in PvP there should be risk and reward. I feel like the current organic PvP that we get it is much more boring that it could potentially be because of an improper risk/reward ratio. If there is more risk for the attacking party then I believe it could be more engaging and would feel less like seal clubbing. If the miner had some chance to fight back that would make the game much more engaging in my opinion.

 

[pavvvel]

I firmly believe that in PvP there should be risk and reward. I feel like the current organic PvP that we get it is much more boring that it could potentially be because of an improper risk/reward ratio. If there is more risk for the attacking party then I believe it could be more engaging and would feel less like seal clubbing. If the miner had some chance to fight back that would make the game much more engaging in my opinion.

What makes you think there is no risk?
Any flight into the asteroid belt is a risk.
A player who goes to kill miners can be killed by another player. He could crash into an asteroid. And the miners' ship could be just bait.

In addition, should criticize miners if they are unable to defend themselves.

That said, the reward for the hunter will be very low if passive sensors are added. Because it will be impossible to board (to take the ship in its entirety and without damage) and will have to blow up the miner's ship.

 

[kiiyo]

Well... Depends. Passive sensors just let you find the miner out in the belt. What you do from there is your choice. If the miner is defenceless and slower than you, you have him in your claws - you can extort him on a "pay me or I blow you up" basis. If they choose to try to run away, you add another lifeless carass of a ship to the foggy fields. If not - you get some ores or cash to trade or shop with.

"Boarding" is quite difficult even now, tbh. It's possible to hear another ship's thruster array, and endos switching from one ship's plates to another can experience a whole extended family of bugs, each of their own flavor of "no boarding for you ".

Also...

A player who goes to kill miners can be killed by another player. He could crash into an asteroid. And the miners' ship could be just bait.

To counter-pirate, sensors would be beneficial to the pirate hunter too; same for the bait situation - the bait would want as many ways to find it as possible, right?

 

[ChaosRifle]

chance to fight back

This is what makes DayZ and Tarkov so interesting. As long as I have even a handgun, I can kill you with a headshot. Every encounter poses a threat.

Any flight into the asteroid belt is a risk.

Crash bars. As long as the physics works correctly(doesn't phase), a crash barrier made of beams can exploit the mechanics behind collision damage and take 0 damage from ramming anything. Even the moon. (20 recursive checks or 50 parts, whichever comes first. Make the shell from frames (valid beam loops), in 24cm beam segments to saturate that calculation prematurely)

Because it will be impossible to board (to take the ship in its entirety and without damage) and will have to blow up the miner's ship.

Yeeeeaaaah... That is already the case, sorry to break it to you.

 

[pavvvel]

Yeeeeaaaah... That is already the case, sorry to break it to you.

What is already the case? Are you saying that if another player's ship is standing still (mining), then I can't walk on it?

 

[ChaosRifle]

another player's ship is standing still (mining), then I can't walk on it?

Nope, because
1: you won't find them
2: most time is spend flying not mining so people don't sit still for more than a minute or two tops
3: fog often masks them even if you could see them
4: even if you find one and have enough time to close the gap, and don't noticed - jumping on their ship requires it to not be LoD'd. You literally can't stand on their ship until it loads parts of it below the LoD surface that magboots can grab onto. Which tends to not happen for several minutes in the current state.

So, when I say you can't board a ship in ~72 seconds (the time it takes me to erase a T10 with 4 lasers) I truely do beleive it, because of the bugs and circumstances required to go right for the attacker. You are better off just shooting the pilot and field repairing the ship to 'board' it, without ever stepping foot on the ship until the other guy is dead, or the ship is incapable of flying so you have enough time to load it.
Will /someone/ have done it? Sure. Enough people try it someone will get lucky - but typically, the answer is no, and you would be better off just killing the pilot, untill these issues are sorted out. That is just the current state of the game.

 

[Recatek]

In addition, should criticize miners if they are unable to defend themselves.

This attitude doesn't really work when said miners can just go play another game. Nobody's forced to stick around in Starbase to be fodder for hunters -- it needs to be an engaging and rewarding experience for all players involved. Otherwise they'll just leave, as they do in other games that don't handle this well, and Starbase isn't in a position to alienate an entire class of players if it relies on them for the economy to function.

 

[Kelmoir]

The Thing I was mainly talking about, was how asymetric those sensors were wished by pavvel. Allthough I do agree, that a miner that sits in a ship that isn't defended at all, is just a pushover. But those who decide to take the stepts to be able to defent themselves, should be able to get a decent chance to do so. And more players to protect just one miner? Well, in a bigger corp that may be an event, to have 2-3 players protecting 5+ Miners, but otherwise: just cheap mining ships, and hope for a feww successfull hauls, and you make more money ba just omitting the protection. After all, they could as well be mining instead. And asymetric effort when they would really need to bring several combar shiip in case one pirate shows up...

Without even regarding the boarding state... Which makes me wonder... can you fully outfit a control chair (including fcu control levers) and keep it in your inventory, so that you can quickly repair a sniped ship? A similar towing beam setup would also help with bringing your ship along.

As long as the sensors are sufficiently balanced, it should be just fine.

 

[Recatek]

Well, in a bigger corp that may be an event, to have 2-3 players protecting 5+ Miners

Having actually done this, it's boring as hell for the escorts, who mostly just sit around and AFK or alt-tab to watch YouTube. It isn't worth boring members of your faction out of the game vs. just running the very slim chance of losing a mining ship, especially when those escorts aren't guaranteed to win anyway (as you point out).

 

[ChaosRifle]

This attitude doesn't really work when said miners can just go play another game. Nobody's forced to stick around in Starbase

Totally true, for both sides:

Even 10 warships against 1 unarmed is an adequate pvp.

because this is NOT adequate, and I would quit playing as an attacker, out of feeling bad for them, and being bored out of my mind.

can you fully outfit a control chair (including fcu control levers) and keep it in your inventory, so that you can quickly repair a sniped ship?

Custom items can have five objects, so yes, a chair + 4 levers, and then the remaining levers can be done in two items.

 

[pavvvel]

Nope, because
1: you won't find them
2: most time is spend flying not mining so people don't sit still for more than a minute or two tops
3: fog often masks them even if you could see them
4: even if you find one and have enough time to close the gap, and don't noticed - jumping on their ship requires it to not be LoD'd. You literally can't stand on their ship until it loads parts of it below the LoD surface that magboots can grab onto. Which tends to not happen for several minutes in the current state.

So, when I say you can't board a ship in ~72 seconds (the time it takes me to erase a T10 with 4 lasers) I truely do beleive it, because of the bugs and circumstances required to go right for the attacker. You are better off just shooting the pilot and field repairing the ship to 'board' it, without ever stepping foot on the ship until the other guy is dead, or the ship is incapable of flying so you have enough time to load it.
Will /someone/ have done it? Sure. Enough people try it someone will get lucky - but typically, the answer is no, and you would be better off just killing the pilot, untill these issues are sorted out. That is just the current state of the game.

What you described is a temporary inconvenience, because the game is in alpha. but you show it as a reason to introduce passive sensors, arguing that "it doesn't work anyway"

This attitude doesn't really work when said miners can just go play another game. Nobody's forced to stick around in Starbase to be fodder for hunters -- it needs to be an engaging and rewarding experience for all players involved. Otherwise they'll just leave, as they do in other games that don't handle this well, and Starbase isn't in a position to alienate an entire class of players if it relies on them for the economy to function.

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

because this is NOT adequate, and I would quit playing as an attacker, out of feeling bad for them, and being bored out of my mind.

WHO? Who said it was inadequate?
just your subjective opinion...? that's not enough.
Even 20 players against one is adequate.
It means that the "one" didn't want to learn, to look for a team. And if he decided to be a loner, it means he chose the wrong tactics.

 

[kiiyo]

An MMO lives and dies by how many players it has and how many it can retain for long periods of time. SB is no exception - the devs' vision is one of a large living and breathing universe filled with players interacting with each other in many different ways, from guns to tax sheets. Therefore, the game must try to not do any of the following too much:

Bore the player - a game has to deserve (AND RESPECT!) a player's time. Period. If it's boring, nobody will play it. This is applies to many things: content/player-achievable goals (or in SB, the lack of it/them), day-to-day player activities (or in SB, the lack of them), and the pace at which a player can progress (disregarding help from factions/friends).

Frustrate the player - grindiness (cough), unexplained systems (cough cough) or constant bugginess (insert asthma attack here) will all result in players alt+f4ing out of the game, or in worse cases, putting a keyboard or controller through the monitor.

Now I'd like to bring some attention to a combination of these different forms of Frustration, one that I call "oh come on". You know, the kind where an enemy's attack breaks through your guard and the game told you nothing about it. The kind where a trap goes off without any warning and sends you back to the last checkpoint. The kind where the boss has a one-shot attack without any way to know about it. Yeah. It feels unfair, unjust, makes you real mad and upset, and most often results in you saying its namesake - "oh come the **** on".

So..

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

Will you keep blaming the players, or will you look at the game?

 

[Recatek]

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. It's there as an option, but it's hardly an emphasis (nor should it be). The idea that the game should alienate and exclude anyone who isn't interested in that one part of the game (so-called "inadequate players", as you put it) is out of touch with what Starbase has been building towards all this time.