Starbase Progress Notes: Week 33 - Capital Ship insight (2021)
- Thread starter ElluFB
- Start date
Honestly, I think differentiating between CCAPs / MCAPs in the first place is not the best idea. In a game already full of safe zones and swinging too far on the pendulum of holding players' hands, a CCAP is going to be the tool of choice 85% of the time because it is invulnerable. You literally can't attack it, if I understand that correctly. This will lead to people favoring it heavily, unless there is a specialized situation where they want to drop a siege on a station -- which will be an *event*, not really something that happens on a daily / weekly basis. Enemies can literally come on park on your front door, and you can't do anything about it. What, are we expected to sit around it and wait for a few ships worth ~200k each to come out every so often? That's not going to do any kind of meaningful damage or impact. Enemies can sit and wait for literally *ever* -- because you can't attack the CCAP -- for an opportunity that looks good for them. Sorry, but that's ridiculous, and mark my words, that will become meta. It's the path of least resistance, and it's being *heavily* enabled by consecutive conscious design choices. Stations and Capital Ships should have very small safe zones, sure, but there should be no player Stations or Capital Ships that can just... never, ever be attacked. The intent there is to protect players, I'm sure, but it can just as easily be abused to antagonize them. Players should be able to sort their issues out with the sand in the sandbox, not because design choices obfuscate those abilities.
Why even build a MCAP? Why even have something that can be attacked? Both carry everything you need, both can warp, both serve as a FOB -- but I was somewhat relieved when I heard about CCAPs not being able to enter asteroid belts. Seemed like it was at least something to reward people who took the risky route of the MCAP.
Now, it looks like Frozenbyte is considering easing up on the limitations on CCAPs, which is pretty mind-blowing to me, frankly. There is even less of a reason to have an MCAP now, outside of the special situation where you feel like attacking a station. Them even considering implementing this change kind of shows me that their intention for PvP in this game is a little fun thing to do on the side every so often. Window after window for risk vs reward, for the game to *at some point outside the gigantic safe zones that already exist* become savage or cutthroat, for Frozenbyte to show that they're going to stop casting wide umbrellas of protection at every turn -- and they just don't do it. I've been hyped on Starbase for years, but it seems like maybe I thought their intentions were something different. Seems to me like their intentions are to keep PvP as a minigame to the side, and really promote the idea that players can be safe 100% of the time while not really seeing any penalties for it.
Even before I heard this change was being considered, there was little reason to go for an MCAP over a CCAP. Even before I heard this change was being considered, I thought it was silly there was even a difference. Players get safe zones at Origins, and even Capital Ships that get attacked have 24/48 hour windows to prepare defenses. But that doesn't seem to be enough?
Games in the past have swung *way* too far towards allowing absolute bloodbaths everywhere. More recently, games have swung back the other way and gone quite far in the other direction, hamstringing PvP and relegating it to a little arcade game off to the side. I've seen a lot of design decisions that lead me to believe Starbase seems to be intent on continuing that trend -- and absolutely none that shows me they have any thoughts of stopping it. So, sure -- it's EA. But their design philosophy is not in EA, that is something that they're baking into mechanics at every opportunity.
Starbase may just be a game that is meant for people to design ships and mine. Because that's how these mechanics are starting to shape up. Players that like to have a PvP-rich experience may end up having to look elsewhere.
Why even build a MCAP? Why even have something that can be attacked? Both carry everything you need, both can warp, both serve as a FOB -- but I was somewhat relieved when I heard about CCAPs not being able to enter asteroid belts. Seemed like it was at least something to reward people who took the risky route of the MCAP.
Now, it looks like Frozenbyte is considering easing up on the limitations on CCAPs, which is pretty mind-blowing to me, frankly. There is even less of a reason to have an MCAP now, outside of the special situation where you feel like attacking a station. Them even considering implementing this change kind of shows me that their intention for PvP in this game is a little fun thing to do on the side every so often. Window after window for risk vs reward, for the game to *at some point outside the gigantic safe zones that already exist* become savage or cutthroat, for Frozenbyte to show that they're going to stop casting wide umbrellas of protection at every turn -- and they just don't do it. I've been hyped on Starbase for years, but it seems like maybe I thought their intentions were something different. Seems to me like their intentions are to keep PvP as a minigame to the side, and really promote the idea that players can be safe 100% of the time while not really seeing any penalties for it.
Even before I heard this change was being considered, there was little reason to go for an MCAP over a CCAP. Even before I heard this change was being considered, I thought it was silly there was even a difference. Players get safe zones at Origins, and even Capital Ships that get attacked have 24/48 hour windows to prepare defenses. But that doesn't seem to be enough?
Games in the past have swung *way* too far towards allowing absolute bloodbaths everywhere. More recently, games have swung back the other way and gone quite far in the other direction, hamstringing PvP and relegating it to a little arcade game off to the side. I've seen a lot of design decisions that lead me to believe Starbase seems to be intent on continuing that trend -- and absolutely none that shows me they have any thoughts of stopping it. So, sure -- it's EA. But their design philosophy is not in EA, that is something that they're baking into mechanics at every opportunity.
Starbase may just be a game that is meant for people to design ships and mine. Because that's how these mechanics are starting to shape up. Players that like to have a PvP-rich experience may end up having to look elsewhere.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2021
- Messages
- 102
I have no reason to not accept you are not, I just wonder why you would take offense to that if so, unless you would consider that sentiment/opinion to not be valid at all and/or actually want to do exactly what you say you'd appreciate others don't; deny their right to voice their opinion and preference by proxy of accusing them of generalizing and being "passive aggressive" when what they say actually does not apply to you.
I understand and get that your focus is PVP gameplay, that at this point in time and in your opinion PVP is not in a good place. I appreciate your point of view in that even when I see plenty of people having fun and enjoying PVP. At the same time, I think FB is right in not putting focus on PVP at the moment as for PVP to get to where it would make more sense, have more meaning and be more enjoyable in general for more players, other mechanics like the radiation tech that is being mentioned here and there, need to be in place and functioning. Maybe it would be good for Frozenbyte to be clearer about their future plans but at the same time, from a game development perspective, the focus not being on PVP right now actually makes sense. Also, their roadmap for the rest of the year would align with that POV and if I could suggest something I'd say that a bit of patience and wait to see what Q1 and Q2 for 2022 will bring with an updated roadmap would be sensible. I'd think FB by now knows what you and many others want, think, and expect as they seem pretty observant and receptive to these opinions.
I'm not sure how several of you see Capitals as something bad. They are big fat beacons in space which do nothing but be a station that can move. In order to do or achieve anything, especially with civilian ones, players will _have_ to leave them and by doing so be vulnerable to all the risk that non safe zone space brings.
So, the argument you make as quoted above is factually incorrect as has been pointed out in the relevant YT video and actually in the very dev quote you used in your post. Once found they are great places to stake out and find content. The only way a capital is "safe" is when you do not undock from it. And for that undock to be safe, I could see defensive ships to come out first, especially with pirates in the area.
And that, to me, seems like a perfect target for your PVP action, no?
I for one would be disappointed if our capitals will not be potential targets in that sense and those of us who will come out as defensive players and ships would go to waste if no one (eventually) shows up and challenges them, allowing the miners or salvagers to go about their business with no risk. Who knows, we may recruit/contract specifically to defend our business assets when they go out.
I do agree if you make an argument that docking a Capital in a station (once their construction is complete) makes no sense as that is basically putting a station in a station. The only possible reason I could see would be repairs but could that not be done inside a stations safe zone area anyway?
Or maybe, PVP is something that, as a closing mechanic in most main game loops, needs prerequisites to be in place and working right to itself be able to function. As so, will take longer to get worked on/addressed, implemented. In any MMO, PVP is never the goal in the bigger picture, it is always a means to an end.
That does not, and should not, exclude the possibility for players to make it _their_ goal in the game for sure though. The game has at least 2 years of development ahead of it as per the devs themselves, a lot will and can change in that time. I can absolutely understand that, for you, at this stage the game is not what you'd expect or want as what you look for is not there yet. IMO stepping away and giving the game some time to get there would not be weird at all, EA is not for anyone, especially if your goals and wants for the game are not yet in place and EA start at this early stage in a game's development.
I understand and get that your focus is PVP gameplay, that at this point in time and in your opinion PVP is not in a good place. I appreciate your point of view in that even when I see plenty of people having fun and enjoying PVP. At the same time, I think FB is right in not putting focus on PVP at the moment as for PVP to get to where it would make more sense, have more meaning and be more enjoyable in general for more players, other mechanics like the radiation tech that is being mentioned here and there, need to be in place and functioning. Maybe it would be good for Frozenbyte to be clearer about their future plans but at the same time, from a game development perspective, the focus not being on PVP right now actually makes sense. Also, their roadmap for the rest of the year would align with that POV and if I could suggest something I'd say that a bit of patience and wait to see what Q1 and Q2 for 2022 will bring with an updated roadmap would be sensible. I'd think FB by now knows what you and many others want, think, and expect as they seem pretty observant and receptive to these opinions.
I'm not sure how several of you see Capitals as something bad. They are big fat beacons in space which do nothing but be a station that can move. In order to do or achieve anything, especially with civilian ones, players will _have_ to leave them and by doing so be vulnerable to all the risk that non safe zone space brings.
So, the argument you make as quoted above is factually incorrect as has been pointed out in the relevant YT video and actually in the very dev quote you used in your post. Once found they are great places to stake out and find content. The only way a capital is "safe" is when you do not undock from it. And for that undock to be safe, I could see defensive ships to come out first, especially with pirates in the area.
And that, to me, seems like a perfect target for your PVP action, no?
I for one would be disappointed if our capitals will not be potential targets in that sense and those of us who will come out as defensive players and ships would go to waste if no one (eventually) shows up and challenges them, allowing the miners or salvagers to go about their business with no risk. Who knows, we may recruit/contract specifically to defend our business assets when they go out.
I do agree if you make an argument that docking a Capital in a station (once their construction is complete) makes no sense as that is basically putting a station in a station. The only possible reason I could see would be repairs but could that not be done inside a stations safe zone area anyway?
Or maybe, PVP is something that, as a closing mechanic in most main game loops, needs prerequisites to be in place and working right to itself be able to function. As so, will take longer to get worked on/addressed, implemented. In any MMO, PVP is never the goal in the bigger picture, it is always a means to an end.
That does not, and should not, exclude the possibility for players to make it _their_ goal in the game for sure though. The game has at least 2 years of development ahead of it as per the devs themselves, a lot will and can change in that time. I can absolutely understand that, for you, at this stage the game is not what you'd expect or want as what you look for is not there yet. IMO stepping away and giving the game some time to get there would not be weird at all, EA is not for anyone, especially if your goals and wants for the game are not yet in place and EA start at this early stage in a game's development.
Last edited:
Factually incorrect? Hardly. How this is actually going to play out in practical terms is much more like this:
Clan A has a CCAP. Clan B *somehow* (not possible unless Frozenbyte implements radiation tracking, and even then, it remains to be seen if it's even feasible to use to track the kinds of distances Caps can travel -- most likely not) finds the CCAP / Clan A's "operation."
If Clan A is disadvantaged, they will have everyone dock up and wait until the situation becomes favorable. If it does not, they will warp away. You literally can't follow them, can't stop them, can't attack them.
Add to that that the cost of the CCAP is most likely going to be in the hundreds of millions. So Clan A gets to have an investment that magnitude, but they're risking what, 10-20 million worth of small little miners / escorts? I haven't even mentioned the fact that a Capital Ship can warp so far away from that particular spot, there's no meaningful way Clan B can ever expect to find them / follow them. Space is *MASSIVE*, and it's sheer size protects people most of the time.
Show me where the risk is that justifies the reward of being able to travel anywhere, carry things that are 100% immune to enemy attack / looting, and then turn around and pack up and leave when things get bad. Where's the reward for people who go out and try to generate PvP / actually scan for ships to engage / find these magical "mining operations outside capital ships" when you show up and they can just run away with literally no penalty? Can't attack them. Can't stop them. Zero recourse. Zero possibility to push a situation where you have an edge.
That is how things will play out from a meta perspective. People will be out in space with assets with a huge price tag, and 98% of it will be permanently safe. They can leave any time they want, and never be obligated to take any kind of engagement they don't want to. How are those design decisions promoting engaging, risk vs reward, exciting gameplay? You really don't see any issues there? I have played so many full loot Sandbox MMO's over the last decade, and the one commonality, is that people play scared. They will take every opportunity to never risk anything. This gives them everything they need to do that in spades, and it will ensure that the "non safe zone" outside of the Origin network is actually still relatively safe.
Vanidar's argument was actually more in line with how these mechanics are going to be used in practical application. Hiding behind the paper shield of PeOpLe WiLl HaVe To LeAvE tHe CaPiTaL ShIp EvEnTuAlLy:
A) No they don't. They can all dock and log off and wait a week. There is literally nothing stopping this -- you know, because invulnerability LOL
B) Don't even wait a week, you can all just dock and warp somewhere else -- space has plenty of asteroids to mine, no shortage of empty space
C) The risk of ships in space around a CCAP will be peanuts compared to the price tag of a CCAP -- if you can afford a CCAP, losing ~10 small ships is a joke to you. That's really your answer?
Clan A has a CCAP. Clan B *somehow* (not possible unless Frozenbyte implements radiation tracking, and even then, it remains to be seen if it's even feasible to use to track the kinds of distances Caps can travel -- most likely not) finds the CCAP / Clan A's "operation."
If Clan A is disadvantaged, they will have everyone dock up and wait until the situation becomes favorable. If it does not, they will warp away. You literally can't follow them, can't stop them, can't attack them.
Add to that that the cost of the CCAP is most likely going to be in the hundreds of millions. So Clan A gets to have an investment that magnitude, but they're risking what, 10-20 million worth of small little miners / escorts? I haven't even mentioned the fact that a Capital Ship can warp so far away from that particular spot, there's no meaningful way Clan B can ever expect to find them / follow them. Space is *MASSIVE*, and it's sheer size protects people most of the time.
Show me where the risk is that justifies the reward of being able to travel anywhere, carry things that are 100% immune to enemy attack / looting, and then turn around and pack up and leave when things get bad. Where's the reward for people who go out and try to generate PvP / actually scan for ships to engage / find these magical "mining operations outside capital ships" when you show up and they can just run away with literally no penalty? Can't attack them. Can't stop them. Zero recourse. Zero possibility to push a situation where you have an edge.
That is how things will play out from a meta perspective. People will be out in space with assets with a huge price tag, and 98% of it will be permanently safe. They can leave any time they want, and never be obligated to take any kind of engagement they don't want to. How are those design decisions promoting engaging, risk vs reward, exciting gameplay? You really don't see any issues there? I have played so many full loot Sandbox MMO's over the last decade, and the one commonality, is that people play scared. They will take every opportunity to never risk anything. This gives them everything they need to do that in spades, and it will ensure that the "non safe zone" outside of the Origin network is actually still relatively safe.
Vanidar's argument was actually more in line with how these mechanics are going to be used in practical application. Hiding behind the paper shield of PeOpLe WiLl HaVe To LeAvE tHe CaPiTaL ShIp EvEnTuAlLy:
A) No they don't. They can all dock and log off and wait a week. There is literally nothing stopping this -- you know, because invulnerability LOL
B) Don't even wait a week, you can all just dock and warp somewhere else -- space has plenty of asteroids to mine, no shortage of empty space
C) The risk of ships in space around a CCAP will be peanuts compared to the price tag of a CCAP -- if you can afford a CCAP, losing ~10 small ships is a joke to you. That's really your answer?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2021
- Messages
- 102
And you're not theory crafting? What is coming in a few days is a first iteration of a new game mechanic, it will be incomplete, rough and have several issues, some likely serious. It will take quite some time for the Capitals (man, I do dislike the name for these) to get to a good place.
It seems to me I see the potential and opportunity for these while you and others see all that could possibly be wrong and presume all that will happen. Neither of us know for sure what will happen. But in the mentality that is displayed here, it seems that you will set yourself up to not like it and be disappointed, regardless of how it comes out.
How about you consider what I suggest and how that could be an actual catalyst for gameplay in many ways to then try and make that happen by providing feedback enabling those options to the devs.. Instead of going all "boohoo, this is bad", go "sure, but how about making these changes to allow so and so to happen".
As I see it, in my scenario, you and I win while in yours I still win. I'd prefer we both have some fun with this from our respective objectives.
I didn't take offense to anything. I just see you constantly replying to concerns that I find legitimate about PvP that is 99% of the time condescending and not constructive. Not going to talk about that anymore here since you're now on your best behavior and I'd rather keep it that way as to keep the discussion healthy.
It's multiple things. I wouldn't say (and never did say) "capitals are bad". Actually, I think CCAPs are a good idea, they just have too much overlap with MCAPs currently and this only makes it significantly worse.
One of the things I meant to convey was a concern about the motivation behind the design decision to 180 on the previous stance that CCAPs cannot enter the belt. I assumed this previous restriction was done to provide companies a risk/cost of flying more expensive and lengthy mining or military operations much further into the belt in order to achieve the same goal they can literally now theoretically park 25 meters away from. Among the many safe zone mechanisms already in the game, this is troubling to me that yet another conscious decision is being made to effectively deny PvP in a zone that *should* be the most savage and dangerous -- the belt in which you literally have to consent to be in. Yes, they'll have to leave their capital ship to mine or attack, but like I said before, previously that flight was anywhere from 100m to ~350km where anything could have happened, now that flight is going to be a loottttttttttt shorter and it'll be relatively simple to just RTB if there's any sign of a threat or problem. Unless someone is literally sitting there staring at your capital ship 1km out, your risk is now significantly closer to zero. Before you say it's the same with stations in the belt, stations cannot move. Station represent significant investment, cannot warp, and stations can be sieged and attacked. CCAPs, like you yourself said, are essentially stations that can move. Now they can go into the belt. Do you not see the problem there?
Secondly, unless I'm missing something the devs haven't shared or I'm just dense, I see a very clear abusable mechanic in allowing a 100% invulnerable civilian capital ship to warp to any arbitrary place in the belt. I went over that above with being able to haul anything and everything so I won't go over it again and spare you the time. That is a real issue given a company with significant resources, and abusing it would only put them more ahead.
I also feel that CCAPs, given this change, can with proper resources replace MCAPs for the majority of capital ship tasks aside from sieging. And hey, guess what? It cannot be attacked or sieged, ever. If I have no interest in sieging, I don't even need to invest in an MCAP now, I can enter the belt with my CCAP and do everything else an MCAP can do. Also, if I have a modest shipyard close to your station deep in the belt, I can warp in my modestly-sized CCAP to my station and stare at you from it. If I'm in a rich company, it could be a large shipyard and a large CCAP, but it's the same end result either way. You can take my station and try to clear me out if we get into a dispute, but I will never move my CCAP from that spot in belt and literally base out of it and harass you for eternity and there is nothing you can do about it by design.
It's multiple things. I wouldn't say (and never did say) "capitals are bad". Actually, I think CCAPs are a good idea, they just have too much overlap with MCAPs currently and this only makes it significantly worse.
One of the things I meant to convey was a concern about the motivation behind the design decision to 180 on the previous stance that CCAPs cannot enter the belt. I assumed this previous restriction was done to provide companies a risk/cost of flying more expensive and lengthy mining or military operations much further into the belt in order to achieve the same goal they can literally now theoretically park 25 meters away from. Among the many safe zone mechanisms already in the game, this is troubling to me that yet another conscious decision is being made to effectively deny PvP in a zone that *should* be the most savage and dangerous -- the belt in which you literally have to consent to be in. Yes, they'll have to leave their capital ship to mine or attack, but like I said before, previously that flight was anywhere from 100m to ~350km where anything could have happened, now that flight is going to be a loottttttttttt shorter and it'll be relatively simple to just RTB if there's any sign of a threat or problem. Unless someone is literally sitting there staring at your capital ship 1km out, your risk is now significantly closer to zero. Before you say it's the same with stations in the belt, stations cannot move. Station represent significant investment, cannot warp, and stations can be sieged and attacked. CCAPs, like you yourself said, are essentially stations that can move. Now they can go into the belt. Do you not see the problem there?
Secondly, unless I'm missing something the devs haven't shared or I'm just dense, I see a very clear abusable mechanic in allowing a 100% invulnerable civilian capital ship to warp to any arbitrary place in the belt. I went over that above with being able to haul anything and everything so I won't go over it again and spare you the time. That is a real issue given a company with significant resources, and abusing it would only put them more ahead.
I also feel that CCAPs, given this change, can with proper resources replace MCAPs for the majority of capital ship tasks aside from sieging. And hey, guess what? It cannot be attacked or sieged, ever. If I have no interest in sieging, I don't even need to invest in an MCAP now, I can enter the belt with my CCAP and do everything else an MCAP can do. Also, if I have a modest shipyard close to your station deep in the belt, I can warp in my modestly-sized CCAP to my station and stare at you from it. If I'm in a rich company, it could be a large shipyard and a large CCAP, but it's the same end result either way. You can take my station and try to clear me out if we get into a dispute, but I will never move my CCAP from that spot in belt and literally base out of it and harass you for eternity and there is nothing you can do about it by design.
Last edited:
I'm not theorycrafting the following:
CCAPs cannot be attacked.
FB is considering allowing CCAPS to show up to stations that have docks for them (even in the asteroid belt they previously weren't allowed to go).
Literally nothing is stopping players from flying right back inside a CCAP when an enemy shows up.
CCAPs can warp to another part of space if they don't like an area.
I don't "see all that could possibly be wrong," I see the actual *factual* mechanics that have been shown, and I'm displaying legitimate in game possiblites that no existing mechanics can stop. I'm speaking in terms of what has been presented to us. So, I'm actually the one presenting facts, while you are retreating to the "maybes" and "what ifs" to avoid addressing the factual scenarios that currently planned mechanics *will* allow, until they're changed or something else comes up.
I actually *was* giving feedback. I made it clear that there should be no distinction between Cap models. Made it clear that the invulnerability of CCAPs is detrimental to the game as a whole and not in line with any kind of acceptable risk vs reward threshold. Disputed the out of touch idea that a few ~200k ships to a clan that can afford a Cap is somehow meaningful. Sometimes the best feedback someone can give is that a planned idea may not be the best, to allow for reconsideration. I've both shown that about a planned mechanic, while simultaneously identifying a solution. That doesn't change my blunt assessment that Starbase seems to be going in the direction of being very risk and open pvp averse.
CCAPs cannot be attacked.
FB is considering allowing CCAPS to show up to stations that have docks for them (even in the asteroid belt they previously weren't allowed to go).
Literally nothing is stopping players from flying right back inside a CCAP when an enemy shows up.
CCAPs can warp to another part of space if they don't like an area.
I don't "see all that could possibly be wrong," I see the actual *factual* mechanics that have been shown, and I'm displaying legitimate in game possiblites that no existing mechanics can stop. I'm speaking in terms of what has been presented to us. So, I'm actually the one presenting facts, while you are retreating to the "maybes" and "what ifs" to avoid addressing the factual scenarios that currently planned mechanics *will* allow, until they're changed or something else comes up.
I actually *was* giving feedback. I made it clear that there should be no distinction between Cap models. Made it clear that the invulnerability of CCAPs is detrimental to the game as a whole and not in line with any kind of acceptable risk vs reward threshold. Disputed the out of touch idea that a few ~200k ships to a clan that can afford a Cap is somehow meaningful. Sometimes the best feedback someone can give is that a planned idea may not be the best, to allow for reconsideration. I've both shown that about a planned mechanic, while simultaneously identifying a solution. That doesn't change my blunt assessment that Starbase seems to be going in the direction of being very risk and open pvp averse.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2021
- Messages
- 102
So I guess you also feel it's bad stations have safe zones? I mean, Capitals as FB designed them are for all intents and purposes, stations that can move. Yes, you can't attack them but at the same time the Cap owner can't achieve or engage in any activity unless they undock. And you continue to completely ignore that fact which directly opens up the option to engage other players.
CCaps may need tweaking to get functional sure, making statements they are detrimental to the game is simply presenting opinion as fact which it at least not justified at this time. And yes, I do feel you are not trying to find ways to make them work, you are trying to justify your opinion by talking yourself into a situation, spinning arguments to where you can do nothing but accept your personal truth in this regard as fact. You seem so wrapped up in your opinion you can't even see alternatives.
Let's look at your facts ..
True and I see no problem with that. CCaps are a platform which will start bringing players out into open space where they will be vulnerable once they leave the CCap.
We do not disagree on the first part but I see no harm for them to go into the belt if that excludes the SZ around the origin stations simply because their purpose is null there. Bringing a CCap into the belt will mean potential targets for you.
A CCap can't move in the belt like ships, for players to get resources they need to move away from the CCap and you can intercept them going out or coming back. you have a nice big beacon to get to and intercept them. Correct me if I am wrong, but a CCap has no option for armaments, so what is preventing you from blocking the CCap player group from returning to it and/or forcing their defense fleet to come out and engage them?
Are you also saying that players lurking at the SZ border, only jumping out at targets if they can win and running right back if they can't is bad for the game?
Yes, and? It's not like they can leave instantly. How does this affect you? Would you not move to a new area if where you are has no purpose or offers no challenges? How is this different from dismantling or decommissioning a station and moving it elsewhere?
I'd say that IMO you are reaching.. trying very hard to justify an opinion that really holds no merit from where I am standing.
CCaps may need tweaking to get functional sure, making statements they are detrimental to the game is simply presenting opinion as fact which it at least not justified at this time. And yes, I do feel you are not trying to find ways to make them work, you are trying to justify your opinion by talking yourself into a situation, spinning arguments to where you can do nothing but accept your personal truth in this regard as fact. You seem so wrapped up in your opinion you can't even see alternatives.
Let's look at your facts ..
True and I see no problem with that. CCaps are a platform which will start bringing players out into open space where they will be vulnerable once they leave the CCap.
We do not disagree on the first part but I see no harm for them to go into the belt if that excludes the SZ around the origin stations simply because their purpose is null there. Bringing a CCap into the belt will mean potential targets for you.
A CCap can't move in the belt like ships, for players to get resources they need to move away from the CCap and you can intercept them going out or coming back. you have a nice big beacon to get to and intercept them. Correct me if I am wrong, but a CCap has no option for armaments, so what is preventing you from blocking the CCap player group from returning to it and/or forcing their defense fleet to come out and engage them?
Are you also saying that players lurking at the SZ border, only jumping out at targets if they can win and running right back if they can't is bad for the game?
Yes, and? It's not like they can leave instantly. How does this affect you? Would you not move to a new area if where you are has no purpose or offers no challenges? How is this different from dismantling or decommissioning a station and moving it elsewhere?
I'd say that IMO you are reaching.. trying very hard to justify an opinion that really holds no merit from where I am standing.
This is entirely your opinion. It is your opinion that PvP is not the goal in the bigger picture over some other singular arbitrary thing. It is your opinion that is only intended to be a "closing mechanic" in any given game loop. That is something that is yet to be seen in Starbase. It is also my opinion that PvP implications being discussed here have no prerequisites like you suppose. Also, no one is asking for someone to implement a change tomorrow, we're discussing and weighing the effects of the design direction going forward. Everyone is allowed to talk about that. Half of us are software developers these days, so I think most of us can agree that design considerations and critiques early are 100x more valuable than later, yes?
You are comparing a CCAP to a station? Stations can be sieged and cannot relocate when it is detected by an enemy faction to avoid a fight. CCAPs are literally invulnerable to *any* aggression and can leave essentially at will (charge time is negligible as it is invincible) with the entirety of their potentially very valuable cargo, carried ships, crew, or technologies. Fairly obvious difference.
Point has been addressed in multiple posts. Please go read my last few posts. They are not as vulnerable by a quarter as they would be before this proposed CCAP change and will not need nearly as much forward thinking, logistical support, escort, mining ship value, or ship range as before. We're talking a ~650km amount of risk and time for something to go wrong compared to potentially a 10km risk with this change. Not to mention, it's far easier to hide in the belt rather than outside of it. Your CCAP will not be sieged or attacked, and you can mine everything fairly safely in a reasonable radius around it unless someone is literally sitting there camping you actively without looking away. If I'm the pirate here or the CCAP abuser, on both sides of the coin I'd be extremely disappointed with the lack risk required to do my job that far away from Origin. I am literally this far out in the belt because I WANT and CHOOSE to have danger present, whether I'm mining or pirating. Doing anything other than CCAP hopping will be the slower and more inefficient way to play, so most of us will feel compelled to do that to keep up if we can afford it. Players are not forced to enter the belt or leave the safe zone at all, but if they are, why does it still feel like they have almost no risk relative to their location?
What this all boils down to is that there is some concern that CCAP will be used for essentially all mining and most military operations that is not sieging. Blaze, you asked for actionable changes instead of people "boo hooing", I think that is an excellent idea and won't miss a chance to backseat develop if someone else takes the blame.
If CCAPs are able to warp into the belt now, I propose:
If CCAPs retain the ability warp into the belt and still retain the ability to carry weapons and rare items, CCAPs and MCAPs should be merged into a single Capital ship type. MCAPs should be able to be sieged by other MCAPs if they are found. This probably wouldn't be ideal for some of the community that wants the invulnerable mobile station that is the CCAP, but right now they are extremely similar if the CCAP can warp into the belt anyway. With the CCAP also able to apply military pressure and carry rare ore in complete safety just makes the MCAP have no real identity apart from literally a wager to be offensive and siege someone.
You are comparing a CCAP to a station? Stations can be sieged and cannot relocate when it is detected by an enemy faction to avoid a fight. CCAPs are literally invulnerable to *any* aggression and can leave essentially at will (charge time is negligible as it is invincible) with the entirety of their potentially very valuable cargo, carried ships, crew, or technologies. Fairly obvious difference.
Point has been addressed in multiple posts. Please go read my last few posts. They are not as vulnerable by a quarter as they would be before this proposed CCAP change and will not need nearly as much forward thinking, logistical support, escort, mining ship value, or ship range as before. We're talking a ~650km amount of risk and time for something to go wrong compared to potentially a 10km risk with this change. Not to mention, it's far easier to hide in the belt rather than outside of it. Your CCAP will not be sieged or attacked, and you can mine everything fairly safely in a reasonable radius around it unless someone is literally sitting there camping you actively without looking away. If I'm the pirate here or the CCAP abuser, on both sides of the coin I'd be extremely disappointed with the lack risk required to do my job that far away from Origin. I am literally this far out in the belt because I WANT and CHOOSE to have danger present, whether I'm mining or pirating. Doing anything other than CCAP hopping will be the slower and more inefficient way to play, so most of us will feel compelled to do that to keep up if we can afford it. Players are not forced to enter the belt or leave the safe zone at all, but if they are, why does it still feel like they have almost no risk relative to their location?
What this all boils down to is that there is some concern that CCAP will be used for essentially all mining and most military operations that is not sieging. Blaze, you asked for actionable changes instead of people "boo hooing", I think that is an excellent idea and won't miss a chance to backseat develop if someone else takes the blame.
If CCAPs are able to warp into the belt now, I propose:
- CCAPs cannot carry any form of weaponry, whether that is personal small arms of its crew, ship-based weapons of ships it carries, or capital-level ship weapons equipped onto itself
- CCAPs cannot carry or transport items past a certain rarity level
If CCAPs retain the ability warp into the belt and still retain the ability to carry weapons and rare items, CCAPs and MCAPs should be merged into a single Capital ship type. MCAPs should be able to be sieged by other MCAPs if they are found. This probably wouldn't be ideal for some of the community that wants the invulnerable mobile station that is the CCAP, but right now they are extremely similar if the CCAP can warp into the belt anyway. With the CCAP also able to apply military pressure and carry rare ore in complete safety just makes the MCAP have no real identity apart from literally a wager to be offensive and siege someone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2021
- Messages
- 102
@Vanidar
There is some points you raise that I can see as fair enough to consider, even when for me, at this point in time, they are premature and based on what you _think_ will or may happen. I just do not have that negative outlook on these units and choose to wait and see. That's probably because I do not have the singular focus on how anything operates in a PVP context which in itself for me seems rather one sided.
I can understand the concern of CCaps not being engageable but at the same time, if they were, it would have to be extremely expensive and hard to do, certainly not something that one single player or a small group could accomplish (not saying that is your POV, just my "condition" for that). And that would probably place the option out of reach for a good number of people rasing the concern here anyway.
At the same time, if you'd say that a CCap should not be attainable by a solo player or a small group, I could agree to that, creating, maintaining, and operating a CCap should require a good number of people.
So to say I see no potential issues with these would not be true, but I do see this first iteration as that, a new mechanic coming in at the first version at a very early stage of development of the game as a whole with no doubt many changes and balance passes to come. Some of which may align with your ideas, others not so much. This will always be a compromise.
Lastly yes, I do believe that in a MMO, PVP is part of the whole, not the goal of the game. It's a bit of a shame you, in your response make it out to be I said this in a different way. I never said "over some other singular arbitrary thing", that is just your perception of how this works projected on my position.
In an MMO there is no single objective or goal, as a player, in a group of players, you set your individual goals and objectives in a MMO, one of which may be PVP, as a main goal for some, as a means to an end for others. An MMO is not built on PVP or any other individual pillar/playstyle/ mechanic, it is built on the sum of its parts and how the players use these parts.
There is some points you raise that I can see as fair enough to consider, even when for me, at this point in time, they are premature and based on what you _think_ will or may happen. I just do not have that negative outlook on these units and choose to wait and see. That's probably because I do not have the singular focus on how anything operates in a PVP context which in itself for me seems rather one sided.
I can understand the concern of CCaps not being engageable but at the same time, if they were, it would have to be extremely expensive and hard to do, certainly not something that one single player or a small group could accomplish (not saying that is your POV, just my "condition" for that). And that would probably place the option out of reach for a good number of people rasing the concern here anyway.
At the same time, if you'd say that a CCap should not be attainable by a solo player or a small group, I could agree to that, creating, maintaining, and operating a CCap should require a good number of people.
So to say I see no potential issues with these would not be true, but I do see this first iteration as that, a new mechanic coming in at the first version at a very early stage of development of the game as a whole with no doubt many changes and balance passes to come. Some of which may align with your ideas, others not so much. This will always be a compromise.
Lastly yes, I do believe that in a MMO, PVP is part of the whole, not the goal of the game. It's a bit of a shame you, in your response make it out to be I said this in a different way. I never said "over some other singular arbitrary thing", that is just your perception of how this works projected on my position.
In an MMO there is no single objective or goal, as a player, in a group of players, you set your individual goals and objectives in a MMO, one of which may be PVP, as a main goal for some, as a means to an end for others. An MMO is not built on PVP or any other individual pillar/playstyle/ mechanic, it is built on the sum of its parts and how the players use these parts.
Last edited:
@blazemonger I think you don't see the problem of an invulnerable platform that can move into PvP zones.
The repercussion is not only for PvP players but for all players.
Removing the risk vs reward will not only affect PvP players but also PvE players
Why?
Several reasons:
- the economy, by simplifying the economy works thanks to the supply and the demand, if with a CCAP you can undermine in a way to secure anywhere (yes you need a scout before for warp), the market will find itself with too great supply in relation to the demand, making that all the players who are interested in the economy will no longer play because there will be no economy. The ores will have only the value given by the bot to the market. Moreover, with the non-destruction of CCAP the demand for ore will never increase as there will be a very large production of raw materials that will only be rarely destroyed. The game economy already has this problem the CCAP will only strengthen it.
- Now in terms of gameplay loop, why are EvE and Albion the only ( ? ) MMO sanbox to work? Just because they figured out what they were doing with the sandbox. By putting scarce and necessary resources in pvp zone miners take a risk which give value to their work . This value will interest pirates and even instigated competition between miners, which will cause miners to call for escorts and want territories. The more enviable the territories will be the stronger the competition between the players for these territories, unleashing enigmatically conflicts and product snowball effect.
With the CCAP, no more need for territory control, no more need for escort, no competition possible because even if resources become scarce it will be impossible to touch the opponent’s base of operations.
The CCAP will not be hotspots because the universe is too big for that and even if other players fall on it they will only have to wait for a mining ship with little value. Let’s say that the company that owns the CCAP loses 10 mining ships ( which is unlikely, the universe being too large ) the company will have lost too little to be a disturbing loss.
What I want to show is that even PvE players will be impacted by this, mining will have little value because too many resources on the market with little demand because little ship loss. The constructors will probably have a little more fun than the others but in the end if there is no demand for more ship, the game will also lose value to them.
Moreover the game will lose and this is already the case these PvP players because the PvP will have little sense because the nerve of the war, the economy, will be non-functional since no territory needs when you have an invulnerable CCAP that can deploy miners anywhere.
In EvE, in albion are the wars that generate all the economy and emulation of the game, all types of players can play around this emulation. Here, I do not see where the emulation will come from, what interest to put a station in PvP zone if you can have it in safe zone and circulate, mine in a safe way with a CCAP.
The repercussion is not only for PvP players but for all players.
Removing the risk vs reward will not only affect PvP players but also PvE players
Why?
Several reasons:
- the economy, by simplifying the economy works thanks to the supply and the demand, if with a CCAP you can undermine in a way to secure anywhere (yes you need a scout before for warp), the market will find itself with too great supply in relation to the demand, making that all the players who are interested in the economy will no longer play because there will be no economy. The ores will have only the value given by the bot to the market. Moreover, with the non-destruction of CCAP the demand for ore will never increase as there will be a very large production of raw materials that will only be rarely destroyed. The game economy already has this problem the CCAP will only strengthen it.
- Now in terms of gameplay loop, why are EvE and Albion the only ( ? ) MMO sanbox to work? Just because they figured out what they were doing with the sandbox. By putting scarce and necessary resources in pvp zone miners take a risk which give value to their work . This value will interest pirates and even instigated competition between miners, which will cause miners to call for escorts and want territories. The more enviable the territories will be the stronger the competition between the players for these territories, unleashing enigmatically conflicts and product snowball effect.
With the CCAP, no more need for territory control, no more need for escort, no competition possible because even if resources become scarce it will be impossible to touch the opponent’s base of operations.
The CCAP will not be hotspots because the universe is too big for that and even if other players fall on it they will only have to wait for a mining ship with little value. Let’s say that the company that owns the CCAP loses 10 mining ships ( which is unlikely, the universe being too large ) the company will have lost too little to be a disturbing loss.
What I want to show is that even PvE players will be impacted by this, mining will have little value because too many resources on the market with little demand because little ship loss. The constructors will probably have a little more fun than the others but in the end if there is no demand for more ship, the game will also lose value to them.
Moreover the game will lose and this is already the case these PvP players because the PvP will have little sense because the nerve of the war, the economy, will be non-functional since no territory needs when you have an invulnerable CCAP that can deploy miners anywhere.
In EvE, in albion are the wars that generate all the economy and emulation of the game, all types of players can play around this emulation. Here, I do not see where the emulation will come from, what interest to put a station in PvP zone if you can have it in safe zone and circulate, mine in a safe way with a CCAP.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2021
- Messages
- 102
@scions
The argument that the universe of SB is too big to locate these CCaps may be valid now, but I would expect the devs will have anticipated that once the game releases, the player base will such that this is less the case and the chance of an encounter gets bigger. Right now, player numbers are really way too low for that to happen and for the state the game development is that both makes sense and is not an issue. If every mechanic gets nerfed or designed to the argument that "the world is big" then SB may as well remove 80% of the game world and call it a balance pass. As I see it, ppl should stop considering the current (state of the) game as the final product and look at the bigger picture, not just their own little bubble as it currently is.
CCaps will IMO be what will attract engagement as more mechanics, like radiation and/or other mechanics to track/locate such targets, come into play. I really feel that too many are holding the mechanic to the light of the current early alpha state of the game with no consideration that the entire game is still in flux and far removed from where FB will want to take it. I doubt the design of the CCap is based on the 4K concurrent players currently in game and will have a projection of eventual population as well as take the future plans and mechanics into consideration. FB has, for me, shown to have a fairly well-thought-out long-term plan, is bringing in parts of that at a fairly steady pace and will no doubt iterate over time.
And yes, while I see nothing I can really agree with entirely in the arguments used by you and others, I do see some points being raised that make sense as something that FB would need to keep an eye on as they develop the CCap mechanic. Something I could see happen is while a CCap is invulnerable to attack, there could be options that prevent it from jumping, making it a potential target for ransom, forcing its crew to come out and fight, hand over their cargo or something of that nature.
Now, back to your points
- the economy
In the context of the economy, I do not think the CCap is the deciding factor, it is the ships and people it carries. You take away those and the CCap becomes a mere shell without function. IMO the goal should not be to kill the CCap, it should be to pull out it's legs and remove it's functional parts, which are the miners or whatever kind of ships they will carry in the future. A Dominix in EVE is a dangerous ship but take out it's drones and it becomes an easy target. I see some making the argument that those with funding in game woudl be able to use CCaps to get further ahead. Is that not paarts of what the game is about? Should those that organise and work to gain wealth not be able to use that wealth to progress their footprint in the game?
- the gameplay loop
EVE (and to a degree Albion) has a massive PVE component which is entirely absent in SB. The PVE in EVE is both a feeder for PVP and through the loot from this, brought in either by the PVE player or by the PVP player who killed the PVE player, drives the economy either directly or through other game mechanics such as industry. And again, none of that is present in SB as of yet and I am not aware it will ever be.
CCap certainly does not remove the need for territory control or escort, in fact and to be effective, a CCap will need to carry a defense fleet/setup to actually control its surrounding are to prevent attack of production ships. As I mentioned before, I recognize some of the possible "flaws" in the design of the mechanic, but this is not one of them for me. I also can't get all worked up over these in advance as I would like to see how this plays out before deciding it's the issue some make it out to be. it is also why I do not think CCaps will eventually be very useful for small groups or even solo player to begin with..
Finally, I believe CCaps will enable/drive a good number of players into non safe sapce who would otherwise not venture out. It both exposes them to more facets of the game and drives the possibility of engagements. CCP has done studies on how players experience the environment of EVE and guess what, those who take risks and experience death/loss in game, especially early on, by and large tend to stick around and be more productive/active in game over time. I can see the same be true for SB as well.
Obviously, all this is just my POV and while I do believe I am pretty close to how this will unfoId, it's obviously possible I have this totally wrong so I do not expect you or anyone else to agree and/or change your mind. I do think there is too many people here thinking in black and white around here, where this should clearly be an area with many shades of grey, or more appropriate I guess, shades of Blue
The argument that the universe of SB is too big to locate these CCaps may be valid now, but I would expect the devs will have anticipated that once the game releases, the player base will such that this is less the case and the chance of an encounter gets bigger. Right now, player numbers are really way too low for that to happen and for the state the game development is that both makes sense and is not an issue. If every mechanic gets nerfed or designed to the argument that "the world is big" then SB may as well remove 80% of the game world and call it a balance pass. As I see it, ppl should stop considering the current (state of the) game as the final product and look at the bigger picture, not just their own little bubble as it currently is.
CCaps will IMO be what will attract engagement as more mechanics, like radiation and/or other mechanics to track/locate such targets, come into play. I really feel that too many are holding the mechanic to the light of the current early alpha state of the game with no consideration that the entire game is still in flux and far removed from where FB will want to take it. I doubt the design of the CCap is based on the 4K concurrent players currently in game and will have a projection of eventual population as well as take the future plans and mechanics into consideration. FB has, for me, shown to have a fairly well-thought-out long-term plan, is bringing in parts of that at a fairly steady pace and will no doubt iterate over time.
And yes, while I see nothing I can really agree with entirely in the arguments used by you and others, I do see some points being raised that make sense as something that FB would need to keep an eye on as they develop the CCap mechanic. Something I could see happen is while a CCap is invulnerable to attack, there could be options that prevent it from jumping, making it a potential target for ransom, forcing its crew to come out and fight, hand over their cargo or something of that nature.
Now, back to your points
- the economy
In the context of the economy, I do not think the CCap is the deciding factor, it is the ships and people it carries. You take away those and the CCap becomes a mere shell without function. IMO the goal should not be to kill the CCap, it should be to pull out it's legs and remove it's functional parts, which are the miners or whatever kind of ships they will carry in the future. A Dominix in EVE is a dangerous ship but take out it's drones and it becomes an easy target. I see some making the argument that those with funding in game woudl be able to use CCaps to get further ahead. Is that not paarts of what the game is about? Should those that organise and work to gain wealth not be able to use that wealth to progress their footprint in the game?
- the gameplay loop
EVE (and to a degree Albion) has a massive PVE component which is entirely absent in SB. The PVE in EVE is both a feeder for PVP and through the loot from this, brought in either by the PVE player or by the PVP player who killed the PVE player, drives the economy either directly or through other game mechanics such as industry. And again, none of that is present in SB as of yet and I am not aware it will ever be.
CCap certainly does not remove the need for territory control or escort, in fact and to be effective, a CCap will need to carry a defense fleet/setup to actually control its surrounding are to prevent attack of production ships. As I mentioned before, I recognize some of the possible "flaws" in the design of the mechanic, but this is not one of them for me. I also can't get all worked up over these in advance as I would like to see how this plays out before deciding it's the issue some make it out to be. it is also why I do not think CCaps will eventually be very useful for small groups or even solo player to begin with..
Finally, I believe CCaps will enable/drive a good number of players into non safe sapce who would otherwise not venture out. It both exposes them to more facets of the game and drives the possibility of engagements. CCP has done studies on how players experience the environment of EVE and guess what, those who take risks and experience death/loss in game, especially early on, by and large tend to stick around and be more productive/active in game over time. I can see the same be true for SB as well.
Obviously, all this is just my POV and while I do believe I am pretty close to how this will unfoId, it's obviously possible I have this totally wrong so I do not expect you or anyone else to agree and/or change your mind. I do think there is too many people here thinking in black and white around here, where this should clearly be an area with many shades of grey, or more appropriate I guess, shades of Blue
Radiation technology is not only an offensive mechanism, but a defensive mechanism at the same time. What this means is, aside from a CCAP ship zipping around the universe without a care in the world, the ships inside, or even the cap ship itself can also have this radiation tech. If the pirates see them, they see the pirates. Meaning, they stay inside their ship to avoid danger. We have a capital ship that can go anywhere, any time, invincible, and can detect enemies from however far away with the radiation tech. This allows the players to hide inside, and warp away to another known location. Easy. This leaves no risk. At. All. Ever. Period.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2021
- Messages
- 102
AFAIK, that is not correct as:
As far as we know, the CCap can't move at a moment's notice. It would make more sense to me to have a defense fleet available on board to fend of attackers as jumping would be costly and require time to charge/prepare. We have limited information, but know that a longer jump will take 6-48 hours of charge time.
An emergency jump (if even available/possible) may take less time but since we do not know how the radiation tech will work, what potential mitigation options will be available to limit the signature you have or what ranges te sensors will operate on, it is at least premature to assume the operational effectiveness you mention.
Then, as the CCap can't move locally, production ships may well be out some distance and getting back to the CCap would take time, time which may well be long enough to intercept them. We simply do not know how this will work yet so here again, it's premature to assume that will not be the case.
Now, it's quite possible you have information on any of these that justifiy your position and I'd be interested to know of these so feel free to share.
As far as we know, the CCap can't move at a moment's notice. It would make more sense to me to have a defense fleet available on board to fend of attackers as jumping would be costly and require time to charge/prepare. We have limited information, but know that a longer jump will take 6-48 hours of charge time.
An emergency jump (if even available/possible) may take less time but since we do not know how the radiation tech will work, what potential mitigation options will be available to limit the signature you have or what ranges te sensors will operate on, it is at least premature to assume the operational effectiveness you mention.
Then, as the CCap can't move locally, production ships may well be out some distance and getting back to the CCap would take time, time which may well be long enough to intercept them. We simply do not know how this will work yet so here again, it's premature to assume that will not be the case.
Now, it's quite possible you have information on any of these that justifiy your position and I'd be interested to know of these so feel free to share.
That speed at which they can warp away is not the make it or break it mechanic, in my opinion. It is still overpowered. Those inhabitants do not have to leave their ship. They can just wait till the charge time is done, if nothing else. They will see the ships coming, so they will have time to button up, and wait it out… If they allow CCAP ships into belts, there are a huge list of reasons a lot of us have mentioned as to why it would break the game. These aren’t just ideas. Anyone would take advantage of the safety, and use it as much as possible. Why wouldn’t they? I mean, it’s free safety. Even I would do it, but I don’t want that option, if that makes sense. I wish the devs would give some information in these regards, because if this implemented, I think I might quit the game. That’ll be to much for me personally to enjoy this game any longer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2021
- Messages
- 102
I certainly hope so. Believe me, I want to be wrong, very much so. I’ve been more excited for this game than any other in my life. And it’s turning out to be nothing at all like what I thought it was. Pvp looks to be treated as a side event, and nothing to do with the main part of the game….. Pvp is what will make this game last. I know this because if look at steam, what are the most popular mmos being played? Ark, and Rust are couple.. Rust… lol.. Ever play it? I’ve never seen more foul language, completely unfiltered, more noobs being absolutely smothered to pieces. I’m talking people spend days trying to get away from being naked, and they fail. Even when you build a base up, it gets raided in the blink of an eye. The toxicity is through the roof. Hands down the most brutal mmo on the market. Especially to new players. Now that is the kind of pvp this community is scared of right? That game has more than 100,000 people on it a day. Mind blowing, huh? What does that tell me? That tells me the pve group is a minority. That tells me the more pvp oriented this game becomes, the more players that come. Sure, we may loose one here, one there, but we will gain double. That’s my opinion. Now, I don’t object to the new player experience, the beginning safe zone is fine. Hell, even rust has safe zones where you can buy and sell, and they made it work really well. But, the rest of space needs to be pvp. It needs to be harsh. Or that huge crowd of pvp lovers will not come to this game. Pve will grow boring, and the game will disappear. Hell, this game needs a bigger player base just to stay alive. Once it drops to a certain point, a lot of the key features are pointless. That’s just my 2 cents. But, I hope this turns out better than the way it’s looking. It seams the even Frozenbyte doesn’t know what to do. Lauri told us they are debating, and wasn’t sure which route to take. It’s very possible that they make a decision that will destroy the game. It happens more than not.
Last edited:
This is why I'm reserving judgment about CCAPS until they're actually implemented and what details are used in those implementations by Frozenbyte. I hope they speak on this subject more as the CAPS get closer to existing, until then I'm just going to enjoy the game and give confidence that FB will get this right like they've done with so many different aspects of this game. For me it's no small thing that they've accomplished making a space game I actually enjoy and feel is alive and where I actually affect things versus space games that are simply big and/or pretty.
At worse, things can be tweaks or the CCAPS outright removed if proven to be a horrendous misstep. FB will have the data to see if the CCAPS end up interfering with the verse in a way that's too negative to be worth the feature.
At worse, things can be tweaks or the CCAPS outright removed if proven to be a horrendous misstep. FB will have the data to see if the CCAPS end up interfering with the verse in a way that's too negative to be worth the feature.
Last edited: