Starbase Progress Notes: Week 33 - Capital Ship insight (2021)
- Thread starter ElluFB
- Start date
.
We are still debating whether or not civilian capital ships can return to capital ships docks large enough to fit the ship. As docks and the station itself are quite an investment, especially a large one, the station capable of hosting civilian capital ships would itself be a valuable target for attacks. The alternative is lone mining ship operating from a minimal station. Allowing players to risk much expensive station to cut the hauling distance sounds like it would generate interesting content more for pvp'rs too. In ideal world both options would be viable, so both options would be used and the content for others would be diverse.
What is certain is that capital ships are not able to collect directly any resources, so every time a capital ship owner wants to get more resources they have to leave the safety of their capital.
What is certain is that capital ships are not able to collect directly any resources, so every time a capital ship owner wants to get more resources they have to leave the safety of their capital.
so, if you all went with the idea of letting people put down foundations to warp to, what keeps them from spamming these? As in, warp to one, pick that foundation up, place it in another location, and warp to that one. So, there would be these unlimited jump points for the cap ship without having to use that module to place the coords on a chip.
If I understood correctly I think challenge and risk in this tactic is how you take the foundations to the new place. And you still need those coordinates at the capital ship, but of course that gets done at the same time when you deliver the foundations and return to the capital ship.
One thing worth to note is that any initiated siege will most likely lock out the station which is targetted from packing up and leaving. So defenses can be built up but the station itself cannot be just hauled away from the siege.
One thing worth to note is that any initiated siege will most likely lock out the station which is targetted from packing up and leaving. So defenses can be built up but the station itself cannot be just hauled away from the siege.
For what little it’s worth, I think it sounds unappealing for a pvp enthusiast standpoint. I say that because it just sounds like another safety net used in a part of space that is not meant to be safe. The civilian capital ships already cannot be destroyed. This just seems a little overboard to me. I want to see less safety to where getting shot outside the safe zones has a big impact on the universe, like the economy, for example. A lot of us want to feel like our gameplay has impact on the universe. All these precautions sound like an overkill of ore being sold to the market. Making the prices extremely low, and not even the pve people benefit from that in the long run… Does that make sense? The only way I can think of this being balanced was a very powerful tool that the pvp group would use to balance these mechanics which give these players easy evasion from danger.. I know we say it a lot. But, the game just seems like it’s trying to be too safe. But, maybe we don’t see the bigger picture. More information on our side of things, and how it will all be balanced would be great. All this talk of safety has kinda of robbed me of alot of excitement I was feeling towards the game.
Agree with J.D more safe zone is worst for everyone :
- More safe zone with CCAP
= more ore and less material sink ( less ships destroyed )
= Price lower and lower on ore because too easy to acess to them and to bring them back in a safe station
= less rentability for miners
= less interest for company to control some area if for collect ore you just need a CCAP that's unkillable
= less interaction between players because PvE players don't need protection from PvP player= less organic gameplay.
PvE and PVP players are supposed to be relliant wich each other not separate. I only know 2 successfull sandbox MMO and they are EVE and Albion ( each of this game relies on players interaction wich is linked to the facts that's each kind of players need other type of players, PvP players control territory for PvE players to farm and PvE player feeds PvP for more territory )
- More safe zone with CCAP
= more ore and less material sink ( less ships destroyed )
= Price lower and lower on ore because too easy to acess to them and to bring them back in a safe station
= less rentability for miners
= less interest for company to control some area if for collect ore you just need a CCAP that's unkillable
= less interaction between players because PvE players don't need protection from PvP player= less organic gameplay.
PvE and PVP players are supposed to be relliant wich each other not separate. I only know 2 successfull sandbox MMO and they are EVE and Albion ( each of this game relies on players interaction wich is linked to the facts that's each kind of players need other type of players, PvP players control territory for PvE players to farm and PvE player feeds PvP for more territory )
Would not a large station with "valuable docks" be a target regardless if you allowed capital ships to return there or not? Capital ships will have to be built by some station with docks somewhere anyway, correct? If cap ships were allowed to warp to any docks large enough, would this not provide large companies able to hold such stations a pretty substantial advantage when it comes to safety, SZ utilization, and ways to haul ships and cargo 100% safely within the belt when they already have a numbers advantage? What is the drawback of a CCAP now compared to an MCAP that the CCAP can hypothetically enter the belt if our company is rich and has multiple stations that act as personal warpgates?
Clans with very high amount of active players playing 8+ hours a day will knock out multiple stations with docks no problem. Once they get a few stations with cap docks on them in the right places, it will only serve to accelerate the rate at which they may safely accrue rare ore, making it easier to throw up new ones, etc, and more easily transfer smaller ships, supplies, people, whatever, directly and 100% safely between their multiple stations within the belt via their invulnerable civilian capital ship. You cannot make it expensive enough for large companies without making it impossible for medium sized companies and down to also achieve.
Respectfully, I don't see the motivation in providing even more 100% safe mechanisms to the already substantial variety of them that exist, especially potentially deep inside the belt which has been time and time again hailed as the place where space would be at it's most savage yet the current reality is the very few people that are out there are already quite safe by the sheer vastness of space per capita (per endo?). No one is being forced to be in belt where theoretically the most valuable resources are, but if they are there, shouldn't we err on the side of allowing pvp in this instance rather than yet another way to categorically deny it? There is a pretty big difference between companies having to leave their capital ship at the edge of the belt vs directly on top of any arbitrary spot within the belt. In the Eos belt, I'd say that's around ~650/2 km to be more precise.
I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong and this somehow, along with other changes, gives an environment that encourages players to choose activity and movement and life (and death) in the PvP areas of this game. Everyone has their own perspective, and I'm fully transparent that mine is from that of a small group of friends that likes small scale pirating/escorting and some large scale pvp built on top of systems that makes it meaningful like mining, industry, and the territory control and conflict that goes with that.
There's a section of the community that wants to profit as pirates or paid escorts to protect against said pirates. We're not the mindless 12 year olds you continue to imply we are and only care about "killz" and "shooting stuff". There's nothing wrong with our attention spans, our intelligence, or our creativity in approaching problems. Every system in this game supports another in some way, whether that's design, "PvE" elements, or the PvP elements. Please stop with the implications and passive aggressiveness. We have just as much a right to campaign for our preferred style of play as you do. There's a lot of issues with PvP right now (or almost the complete lack of it, more specifically) just like any other system in EA, and is EA not marketed as a way for players to be vocal and contribute to the future of the game while it is in development?
Clans with very high amount of active players playing 8+ hours a day will knock out multiple stations with docks no problem. Once they get a few stations with cap docks on them in the right places, it will only serve to accelerate the rate at which they may safely accrue rare ore, making it easier to throw up new ones, etc, and more easily transfer smaller ships, supplies, people, whatever, directly and 100% safely between their multiple stations within the belt via their invulnerable civilian capital ship. You cannot make it expensive enough for large companies without making it impossible for medium sized companies and down to also achieve.
Respectfully, I don't see the motivation in providing even more 100% safe mechanisms to the already substantial variety of them that exist, especially potentially deep inside the belt which has been time and time again hailed as the place where space would be at it's most savage yet the current reality is the very few people that are out there are already quite safe by the sheer vastness of space per capita (per endo?). No one is being forced to be in belt where theoretically the most valuable resources are, but if they are there, shouldn't we err on the side of allowing pvp in this instance rather than yet another way to categorically deny it? There is a pretty big difference between companies having to leave their capital ship at the edge of the belt vs directly on top of any arbitrary spot within the belt. In the Eos belt, I'd say that's around ~650/2 km to be more precise.
I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong and this somehow, along with other changes, gives an environment that encourages players to choose activity and movement and life (and death) in the PvP areas of this game. Everyone has their own perspective, and I'm fully transparent that mine is from that of a small group of friends that likes small scale pirating/escorting and some large scale pvp built on top of systems that makes it meaningful like mining, industry, and the territory control and conflict that goes with that.
There's a section of the community that wants to profit as pirates or paid escorts to protect against said pirates. We're not the mindless 12 year olds you continue to imply we are and only care about "killz" and "shooting stuff". There's nothing wrong with our attention spans, our intelligence, or our creativity in approaching problems. Every system in this game supports another in some way, whether that's design, "PvE" elements, or the PvP elements. Please stop with the implications and passive aggressiveness. We have just as much a right to campaign for our preferred style of play as you do. There's a lot of issues with PvP right now (or almost the complete lack of it, more specifically) just like any other system in EA, and is EA not marketed as a way for players to be vocal and contribute to the future of the game while it is in development?
Last edited: