Real ships, real logistics, actual space battles! - Safe-field disruptor and warp drives -

Aha

Well-known endo
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
69
#1
The siege mechanics that the capital ships provide are fantastic solutions. They prevent offline raiding but still, the attacker has the choice when to attack and most importantly they CAN attack. Brilliant!
Unfortunately, the way this mechanic was designed puts a lot of potentials to waste, and also puts a spike into people who realize that they are being lied to.
The capital ships are not capital ships, they are mobile space stations, they are like these cigar-shaped mega carriers from DUNE.

This is a lie!
Lie.png

Reality:
dune carrier.jpg

You made it look like a ship, you call it a ship, you are trying to sell it as a capital ship. A very distasteful lie!


My proposal here offers more flexibility, more options to carry out the fight, eliminates the lie, and gives a LOT more strategic depth to the game.

Let me present you the...

Safe-field disruptor
Or shortly the field disruptor.

Capitalie ships are completely repurposed, they are what they are, mobile space stations to transport stuff around.
Safe zones are rephrased as safe fields replacing absolute magic with something more sensible and tasteful.
A safe field works just like the safe zone but it's more like an active projected field that has an effect on people(robots) and stuff. Details are unimportant, it is safe zone as you mean them to be really.


The field disruptor is the device that neutralizes it taking the job of the "military capitalie ship".
It is big, really big, huge!, heavy, and radiative! You have to build it into a big battleship and defended it well for it to work(-out).


-How it works-

For it to be able to neutralize a safe-field first it has to charge itself up to the required "frequency-code-phase-whatever" of the target's safe-field. You get this "frequency-code" by scanning the target field beforehand (with a scout ship maybe). This is basically just to identify the specific target, a serial number to say.
It has to be outside of any safe-field to start and mantain charge. Charging takes X hours/days.
Once a field disruptor starts charging to a particular station's safe field that base gets a warning. (similar how you plan it to be with the "military capitalie ship")
Charging and maintaining charge requires great amounts of power and it creates enormous radiation. Once the device charged and the device brought near the target base it disturbs (disables) the target's safe field.
Once a safe field is disabled, even if the disruptor is neutralized it still needs X hours to come back online. The battle "ends" when the station is either captured or the disruptor is neutralized and the safe field came back online.

All this creates a whole range of opportunities to both stop and execute a siege:


-Enriching space battles-

Like this, there will be actual fleet-convoys going on a mission. All that radiation signal of the ships making up this fleet makes them very visible and identifiable on the radiation radar. The field disruptor itself multiplies that so people can see it from afar that there is something going on.
The attacking fleet could be ambushed by either the defender or allies or groups looking for opportunities.
The attacker party could decide how to reach and engage their target, they could postpone the attack sacrificing expensive fuel to maintain the disruptor charge maybe to lure the defenders out or for whatever reasons.
We have real ships, no fake capitalie ships space stations.


-Territory, diplomacy, and information-

As fleets would have to physically get to their target rather than teleporting, they could be crossing territories owned/controlled by factions.
This gives a whole new level to the gameplay, as you would have to engage in diplomacy to cross certain territories, you could be approached by others questioning your motives as your fleet is detected moving.

Information of the whereabouts of fleets is valuable information to be used in diplomacy and to be sold to whoever is interested.
Scouting as a job is so vital, information of the what about of the fleets are also important.

Radiation signals could be used on a holo table/deck to project a 3D map of the universe or a section of it. I already made a similar suggestion about this in my other thread "THE space combat solution v.2 (making large ships viable while respecting the core mechanics too) In depth presentation."
That whole other suggestion complements this one by the way.


-New player/company protection-

We all know that protecting those who are new or wish not to be harmed is important. This is no new topic.
It also has to be fair!

Let's take a company (or a solo player) that has a station. Until that station is the only station of the company and the value of the station (size, stored resources, whatever assets) doesn't exceed a certain "limit", is totally invincible, and its safe-field can not be disabled.
You lose this invincibility
-if the total value of assets of your company exceeds a certain size
-if your company builds a second station
-if you attack a company/faction, you lose invincibility against that company/faction
Wanna stay small and just mind your own business peacefully without being griefed by big factions? You can do it.

-Balancing factions-

Here we talk about another crucial "protection" feature. This helps greatly for smaller factions to survive and naturally prevent super (just way too big) factions to form.
This is achieved by the safe-field disturber charge-up time balance.
If your company and the target company are about the same size (member count, assets, whatever determination) that is the standard X hours/days of charging time. Let's say 24 hours.
If your company is twice as big as your target's company then the charge-up time increases to 36 hours.
If your company is 5-10 times bigger than your target's company then the charge up time increases to 2-4 days

On the other hand, if you are half as big then the charge up time reduces to 20 hours etc. (it has to be that large factions can not abuse this making fake small companies, maybe no decreasing charge-up time at all)


These time values are simply for demonstration and not actual suggestions, it is up to the developers to balance them out.

This mechanic gives extra protection for the weaker companies giving them extra time to prepare including engaging in diplomacy.
Also promotes more factions to be instead of few super factions as if half the world was one faction, they would look for a charge-up time of a month trying to siege anything small.
It also creates a natural fluid barrier of how big a faction can grow. No super factions griefing everybody!


Now let's talk about another lie:
fake fantasy.png

See that large ship? Is this a viable ship? Is this Starbase? That is no fighter nor bomber nor gunship. That is a big battleship! (i would call it a frigate or maybe cruiser)
This lie is the banner of the youtube channel! Imagine the disappointment of the people who come to play with capital ships and large ships to find that they have been scammed!

Instead of big ships, they get this:
Quevin ship.png


Let's eliminate these lies!
Here is another suggestion to make large ships viable:




Warp Drives


Just remove the capitalie ships completely, they take potential away from the game anyway. Let people have real ships!

-How it works-

The warp drive has to charge up for X amount of time before warp. (10-30 minutes)
It doesn't make the ship teleport, instead, it gives a straight movement with higher speed.
Similar to what @Joelfett suggested here.
The more of this device you install, the faster you can travel, but the heavier and detectable you are.
It uses enormous amounts of power. It could use a special very rare fuel. Warpium? :D
You don't warp around with your mining vessel...
The higher speed you are achieving the more resources it consumes exponentially. Also the heavier you are the slower you can warp.
For example:
You have 1 drive installed (i imagine destroyers as the smallest class to potentially have 1 or 2, destroyers from my radiation auto turret suggestion ofc)
You can warp with about 300 m/s consuming X amount of fuel.
With 2 drives you go 550 m/s consuming 2X amounts of fuel. (not 600 m/s because you got a lot heavier with the extra drive compared to the total weight of your ship -the destroyer-)
With 3 drives you go 700 m/s consuming 6X amounts of fuel.
These speed and consumption values are only for demonstration! It could be 3000 m/s as well, needs to be balanced.

It takes good engineering and design balance to make a ship fast responding with fast warp speed, but also fast maneuvering for battle. Faster response or better combat performance? Are you willing to spend the stupid amounts of resources for that extra 150 m/s? Your choice of ship design! ;)




-Conclusion-

Imagine the diversity and all the opportunities of engagements with all of these!
Large ships are becoming viable. Ship designing has a much deeper variety to consider.
Siege battles are much more fluid and natural and even fairer!
Starbase will attract a lot wider audience!
You need to populate this huge world! Capitalie clown stations with gunship-bomber-fighters won't do it unless you shrink the world by 70% or more!
Catering to a whole wide audience will do it!


There are important elaborations in my responses to the comments below as I addressed some concerns.
 
Last edited:

XenoCow

Master endo
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
435
#2
I haven't yet read your post. I'll do that later and edit this response after I do.

See that large ship? Is this a viable ship? Is this Starbase?
I've seen that ship in-game. I think it's called "Humphrey" as can be partly seen on the side. Not all of the interior is useful as the ship brushes up against the build limits, but it has seen some combat use. I think @TGess is the creator. If not, he or she would very likely know who is.
 

CalenLoki

Master endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
656
#3
The capital ships are not capital ships, they are mobile space stations, they are like these cigar-shaped mega carriers from DUNE.
If they named them "stations", there would be someone who would argue "their not stations, since they can move, and stations are stationary by definition". Just like they do with Deathstar.
Probably term "platform" or "rig" would be more neutral, but not too descriptive.
How it works-

For it to be able to neutralize a safe-field first it has to charge itself up to the required "frequency-code-phase-whatever" of the target's safe-field. You get this "frequency-code" by scanning the target field beforehand (with a scout ship maybe). This is basically just to identify the specific target, a serial number to say.
It has to be outside of any safe-field to start and mantain charge. Charging takes X hours/days.
Once a field disruptor starts charging to a particular station's safe field that base gets a warning. (similar how you plan it to be with the "military capitalie ship")
Charging and maintaining charge requires great amounts of power and it creates enormous radiation. Once the device charged and the device brought near the target base it disturbs (disables) the target's safe field.
Once a safe field is disabled, even if the disruptor is neutralized it still needs X hours to come back online. The battle "ends" when the station is either captured or the disruptor is neutralized and the safe field came back online.
There are some problems with this approach:
1. People could start charging the disruptor without intention to actually arrive at station and fight for it. So they would force defenders to show up at no cost.
2. Destruction of disruptor should bring the safe zone back right away. Forcing players to wait for timer when there is nobody to fight against is bad practice
3. Ships are limited in size because of engine and network limitations. So even if you invest all limited resources to armour, it'll get easily disabled
4. Capital ships rigs provide meaningful decision for the attacker side - you need to risk as much as defenders by bringing very expensive asset to the battle. Winner takes both. Normal ship would never reach the value of a proper station (again - size limitations)

-New player/company protection-

We all know that protecting those who are new or wish not to be harmed is important. This is no new topic.
It also has to be fair!

Let's take a company (or a solo player) that has a station. Until that station is the only station of the company and the value of the station (size, stored resources, whatever assets) doesn't exceed a certain "limit", is totally invincible, and its safe-field can not be disabled.
You lose this invincibility
-if the total value of assets of your company exceeds a certain size
-if your company builds a second station
-if you attack a company/faction, you lose invincibility against that company/faction
Wanna stay small and just mind your own business peacefully without being griefed by big factions? You can do it.
While the intention is noble, system like that is easily abusable by creating fake factions to establish indestructible outposts. So there would need to be some more ways to disable the invincibility:
-if big enough station exists nearby (100km?) for X amount of time (5 days?)
-if any station exist nearby at the time the station get founded
It would be still possible for big factions to establish safe storage far away from contested zone. But it's not as bad of an exploit.
-Balancing factions-

Here we talk about another crucial "protection" feature. This helps greatly for smaller factions to survive and naturally prevent super (just way too big) factions to form.
This is achieved by the safe-field disturber charge-up time balance.
If your company and the target company are about the same size (member count, assets, whatever determination) that is the standard X hours/days of charging time. Let's say 24 hours.
If your company is twice as big as your target's company then the charge-up time increases to 36 hours.
If your company is 5-10 times bigger than your target's company then the charge up time increases to 2-4 days

On the other hand, if you are half as big then the charge up time reduces to 20 hours etc. (it has to be that large factions can not abuse this making fake small companies, maybe no decreasing charge-up time at all)
Same as above: big faction creates fake small faction to bring safezones quicker. After the safe zone is down, anyone can show up at the battle anyway.
See that large ship? Is this a viable ship? Is this Starbase? That is no fighter nor bomber nor gunship. That is a big battleship! (i would call it a frigate or maybe cruiser)
As XenoCow said, it's in game and usable. Viable? Not really, due to turrets not being viable.
It was made by MrFotnz, and AFAIK it was before ship voxel limits got doubled.
And it's a corvette, by his classification
 

Aha

Well-known endo
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
69
#4
If they named them "stations", there would be someone who would argue "their not stations, since they can move, and stations are stationary by definition". Just like they do with Deathstar.
Probably term "platform" or "rig" would be more neutral, but not too descriptive.
Hmm... :unsure: Yes, no!
ISS-International Space STATION, totally not stationary, it is all relative of course. We are talking about space stuff so it is hard to argue. I think both mobile stations and rigs are just fine. I stand with stations. :)

There are some problems with this approach:
1. People could start charging the disruptor without intention to actually arrive at station and fight for it. So they would force defenders to show up at no cost.
2. Destruction of disruptor should bring the safe zone back right away. Forcing players to wait for timer when there is nobody to fight against is bad practice
3. Ships are limited in size because of engine and network limitations. So even if you invest all limited resources to armour, it'll get easily disabled
4. Capital ships rigs provide meaningful decision for the attacker side - you need to risk as much as defenders by bringing very expensive asset to the battle. Winner takes both. Normal ship would never reach the value of a proper station (again - size limitations)
1. Not at no cost, not at all. Maintaining charge requires large amounts of power, it emits huge radiation and you cant have it charging/charged in a safe field so you are a huge target.
Sure, there must be more balancing to this. For example the defenders could also get an estimated distance info about the attacking field disturber.
2. I might be wrong here, not 100% sure, but it is already planned to be like that.
Also, keep in mind that it would be a lot easier to just focus all firepower to obliterate the field disturber ship and then that's it for the attackers. Would that be fair?
3. Yea sure, but then don't make these lies, having that youtube banner sells the game as ships like those are a vital part of the game!
4. Well, meh. Is this a casino or a space MMO? Is forcing double or nothing a good game design? The inability to retreat and to control the engagement? I would prefer tactics over forced terribly limited tactics-less double or nothing. The base concept of neutralizing safe zones is brilliant, all that they built upon this concept are terrible, not even "meh" actually, it is straight terrible game design. Where is the depth of "modularity" here?

While the intention is noble, system like that is easily abusable by creating fake factions to establish indestructible outposts. So there would need to be some more ways to disable the invincibility:
-if big enough station exists nearby (100km?) for X amount of time (5 days?)
-if any station exist nearby at the time the station get founded
It would be still possible for big factions to establish safe storage far away from contested zone. But it's not as bad of an exploit.
Yes, definitely needs more work, I am sure that it's doable to make it work as intended tho.
One idea could be that the stations also can't have too big resource traffic and also make it a bannable practice.
Invincible station safe fields would disallow to enter anyone who is not member of the company / who was a member of another company (a large / not invincible-safe fielded) in the past X days.
Honestly, there are many many ways to prevent hard abuse just have to be creative! :)
The benefit is worth the trouble.


Same as above: big faction creates fake small faction to bring safezones quicker. After the safe zone is down, anyone can show up at the battle anyway.
Hence I said maybe no reducing charge time from the standard. Ultimately the idea needs a lot of work for sure, it is just a concept.

As XenoCow said, it's in game and usable. Viable? Not really, due to turrets not being viable.
Exactly! It is a LIE! Using a ship that is absolutely not viable as a "main" visual selling point is unacceptable. Either make them viable or don't lie!
Turrets?
THE space combat solution v.2 (making large ships viable while respecting the core mechanics too) In depth presentation.

You raised good points, I think they are fixable and I will think about them so thank you for your review! :)
 
Last edited:

CalenLoki

Master endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
656
#5
1. Not at no cost, not at all. Maintaining charge requires large amounts of power, it emits huge radiation and you cant have it charging/charged in a safe field so you are a huge target.
Sure, there must be more balancing to this. For example the defenders could also get an estimated distance info about the attacking field disturber.
2. I might be wrong here, not 100% sure, but it is already planned to be like that.
Also, keep in mind that it would be a lot easier to just focus all firepower to obliterate the field disturber ship and then that's it for the attackers. Would that be fair?
3. Yea sure, but then don't make these lies, having that youtube banner sells the game as ships like those are a vital part of the game!
4. Well, meh. Is this a casino or a space MMO? Is forcing double or nothing a good game design? The inability to retreat and to control the engagement? I would prefer tactics over forced terribly limited tactics-less double or nothing. The base concept of neutralizing safe zones is brilliant, all that they built upon this concept are terrible, not even "meh" actually, it is straight terrible game design. Where is the depth of "modularity" here?
I wouldn't call a bit of rare fuel enough payment for forcing entire faction to show up at buttcrack of dawn to defend all their possession.
The cost for attackers for not showing up to a staged battle they initiated should be equal or bigger than the cost defenders would pay if they didn't show up (which is loosing the station).
It's a game about decisions with consequences. If you could attack with minimal risk, choosing the time, possibly not show up and retreat when things start going bad, how is it fair for defenders who can't win any goods, loose huge investment if they lose the battle and can't retreat nor end battle earlier by aggressive stance?
What control of the battlefield do you offer to defenders?

I though in the past about a system involving siege ships like yours. But on top of them attackers would have to link nearby owned station - if they'd lose their siege ships (or not show up at all), that station would be immediately open to counter-siege. But that was before they announced teleporting platforms, which is TBH more elegant solution.
Here's the old idea: https://forum.starbasegame.com/thre...v3-0-burnsides-hybrid-revision.794/#post-7304

Preventing charge up in a safe zone is a bad idea. It forces attackers to babysit the siege ship for days, possibly without anything fun (like counter attack) ever happening. Entire siege system exists to allow people to sleep at night rather than keeping guard of their virtual possession.

and also make it a bannable practice.
The goal of game system is to involve as little of manual moderating as possible, so that's not a valid option.



I get what you want to achieve - big ships being somehow needed for direct combat. But the entire idea has just too many loopholes. I'd wait with it until ship limits grow big enough for really durable (and mobile) capital ships.
 

Aha

Well-known endo
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
69
#6
I wouldn't call a bit of rare fuel enough payment for forcing entire faction to show up at buttcrack of dawn to defend all their possession.
The cost for attackers for not showing up to a staged battle they initiated should be equal or bigger than the cost defenders would pay if they didn't show up (which is loosing the station).
Well, the thing is this isn't a staged battle! It is intentionally semi-staged! The defenders don't have to show up when the charge-up is ready, they have to show up when the attacking fleet is there with a charged-up field disturber! They can track the enemy fleet by means of diplomacy, espionage, or if they are close enough (still hours away) to simply detect their radiation.


What control of the battlefield do you offer to defenders?
Okay, so the defenders can decide to counter-attack any time and they have the relative advantage of knowing the enemy fleet / field disturber's position because of its enormous radiation. They can scout the attacking fleet knowing what to expect instead of total mystery. Even if the attackers retreat, since they not gonna teleport, they can be chased and hunted down. Any ore dust/wrecks will be left behind for the defenders to collect. They have a huge control by instead of waiting, going out with their own fleet and intercept the attacking forces. It's not like they have to sit and wait, the attackers won't teleport there, you will see them coming! This is the "actual space battles" in the name of the thread.
There could and should be a mobile app where players of the faction could be notified "HEY THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMING, ETA 6 HOURS UNTIL THEY ARRIVE AT OUR STATION, GET ON IF YOU CAN"


Preventing charge up in a safe zone is a bad idea. It forces attackers to babysit the siege ship for days, possibly without anything fun (like counter attack) ever happening. Entire siege system exists to allow people to sleep at night rather than keeping guard of their virtual possession.
Well, all that babysitting is an incentive to actually show up. Without anything fun like counterattack ever happening??? Exactly the opposite as I just said above, they could be counterattacked at any time, especially if the defenders get to know an estimated distance of the whereabouts of the charging field disturber. Other groups who see the radiation could jump on it to steal this expensive asset as well.
I do agree tho that it could be too much babysitting so I guess something in between should be, a compromise.

This is the flexibility I meant, a siege isn't necessarily at the target station. The whole interaction is fluid and there is tactical and strategical depth into it rather than a blatant forced limited staged more unfair than fair capital ship mess. There are good arguments for it, sure, absolutely. I just feel like Starbase could be much more than this ultimately primitive way of handling siege. I look at the modularity of the game, having such depth and I expect that depth/diversity to be at other important aspects of the game too, otherwise what is the depth really for?
It's not just about big ships, the issue is far more serious and deep.

I though in the past about a system involving siege ships like yours. But on top of them attackers would have to link nearby owned station - if they'd lose their siege ships (or not show up at all), that station would be immediately open to counter-siege.
Just a quick idea inspired by this.
So how about a "pre-charge" that must be in a well enough established station's safe field. Upon starting to charge-up, the target station gets the exact position of the attacking station. This gives them opportunities.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
321
#7
Seems we agree on whether capital ships should exist in the game as described, and on how a warp drive is potentially needed.
 

MAXD

Well-known endo
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
94
#8
Instead of big ships, they get this:
I didnt actually met this ship but I wonder its rpm.
Or should I say MPS(minuts per shot).
From this point of view I think it cant even afford the upkeep.
I mean have you ever made a ship yourself ?
Or watch some event videos to know the popular fighters?
You think vr all fighting with this in events?
 

Joelfett

Learned-to-turn-off-magboots endo
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
47
#9
@Aha This looks very excellent, hopefully it will get a spot in the capitalie ship function suggestions section
 

Aha

Well-known endo
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
69
#10
I didnt actually met this ship but I wonder its rpm.
Or should I say MPS(minuts per shot).
From this point of view I think it cant even afford the upkeep.
I mean have you ever made a ship yourself ?
Or watch some event videos to know the popular fighters?
You think vr all fighting with this in events?
Hi, this is @Quevin's ship. This kind of ship is the most viable warship in Starbase currently.
If you don't know Quevin, this is how he introduced himself to me:
"(...) For your information,
I currently got over 2.1k hours in starbase Closed Alpha, with vast experience in the SSC (ship building aspect) and mainly focused on the PvP side of the game. (organic PvP not event driven, like most people do).


I currently hold a record of having between 50 and 100 kills within the belt without taking damage."

This is an outdated one tho, he already has a new version so you might be right about this exact ship. The point it presents still stands and is valid! :)
 
Last edited:

CalenLoki

Master endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
656
#11
Quevin's ship is SB equivalent of IRL Somali pirate motor boat.
Would you call them meta navy vessels of our times, just because they score the most kills on freighter ships?
 

Aha

Well-known endo
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
69
#12
Quevin's ship is SB equivalent of IRL Somali pirate motor boat.
I disagree with the motorboat statement. IRL a motorboat is an easy target. Quevin's ship is SB equivalent of IRL UFO-s, you have no chance against them (implying they would attack you) they go invisible and super fast.

Would you call them meta navy vessels of our times, just because they score the most kills on freighter ships?
No, I call them meta navy vessels because they are meta navy vessels. Period! :) Edit: Oh you meant the Somali motorboats, I thought you mean Quevin's ship assuming he has been hunting miners and such only.

Quevin conv.png


Sure this comparison is a bit of exaggeration for dramatization. Obviously, people will use ships to effect those arent so minimalistic.
Still, this is most effective! (obviously, since there are no auto-turrets)
 
Last edited:

Aha

Well-known endo
Joined
Jun 22, 2021
Messages
69
#14
Nomads and Tactical have much better ships than Quevin. As does Subway.
Sure sure, but i guess non of them look anything like the "Humphrey" and compared to that, they look a lot more like Quevin's ship.
And so it's all besides the main point/topic btw.
 

MAXD

Well-known endo
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
94
#15
Em I think everyone know his ship
can only hunt mining ships bro.
I actually met him before in the belt.
As for this one , any ship with AC can easily won.
 

TGess

Learned-to-turn-off-magboots endo
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
47
#16
I haven't yet read your post. I'll do that later and edit this response after I do.


I've seen that ship in-game. I think it's called "Humphrey" as can be partly seen on the side. Not all of the interior is useful as the ship brushes up against the build limits, but it has seen some combat use. I think @TGess is the creator. If not, he or she would very likely know who is.
That is Humprey and it was made by @mrfotnz[930] and that ship is completely not combat viable
 
Top