Station Siege Mechanics
- Thread starter Recatek
- Start date
I agree they will be far less likely, but I think they are precious and the game should do what it can to cultivate them. "My Guild's Private Warbase" is bog standard for pretty much every PvP game, MMO or not. "The Great Trading Port" fulfills a compelling and underrepresented MMO fantasy that I would personally love to see more of. A more comprehensive safe zone doesn't really hurt the warbase paradigm in ways I can easily spot, and it definitely helps with the social hub paradigm.
I'm a hardline advocate for proactive PvP situations, not reactive ones. Playing a station police officer tasked with patrolling the station is not something I see as actually panning out to be very fun after a week or two, especially if the station isn't the most booming and active one out there. Long stretches of boredom are unfortunately more common in PvP games than I believe they should be. As such, I'm far more in favor of game mechanics, intrusive as they may occasionally be, that "automate out" the need for passive or reactive PvP situations, so people can be out doing fun things they want to do rather than what are essentially faction chores.
I'm used to something like EVE where factions set a "relationship value" of -10 to +10 on one another, so you have "blues" and "reds". In an environment like this you can declare an unaffiliated faction is nonetheless "friendly" (say, +3), and allow that to be the threshold for receiving safety in your station's protective field. Since protected entities can't harm each other, two "friends" of yours that are neutral or maybe even hostile to one another are nonetheless safe from one another, and so your hub serves its purpose for the broadest audience you're comfortable with.
I'm a hardline advocate for proactive PvP situations, not reactive ones. Playing a station police officer tasked with patrolling the station is not something I see as actually panning out to be very fun after a week or two, especially if the station isn't the most booming and active one out there. Long stretches of boredom are unfortunately more common in PvP games than I believe they should be. As such, I'm far more in favor of game mechanics, intrusive as they may occasionally be, that "automate out" the need for passive or reactive PvP situations, so people can be out doing fun things they want to do rather than what are essentially faction chores.
I'm used to something like EVE where factions set a "relationship value" of -10 to +10 on one another, so you have "blues" and "reds". In an environment like this you can declare an unaffiliated faction is nonetheless "friendly" (say, +3), and allow that to be the threshold for receiving safety in your station's protective field. Since protected entities can't harm each other, two "friends" of yours that are neutral or maybe even hostile to one another are nonetheless safe from one another, and so your hub serves its purpose for the broadest audience you're comfortable with.
One thing I'd like to emphasize here also is that I see stations as one of many different appealing PvP objectives -- stations being the biggest, "juciest", and also the most challenging one. I would like to see (and very much advocate for) smaller and more regularly vulnerable flashpoints/hotspots for people to fight over. Other games do this with capturable mines, valuable hunting grounds, rare spawns, critical avenues of travel, and so on. There's lots of fertile ground here for Starbase to attract people to "lesser" PvP objectives (with a more "easy come, easy go" mentality) that all would lead up to the pinnacle experience of a station siege. There should always be something you can do, proactively taking the initiative, to start a fight somewhere and create PvP encounters. Waiting for the PvP to come to you, or spending long periods of time turning over rocks to find it, is boring.
Last edited:
I'm thinking things that aren't necessarily player-built. The vulnerability of an asset should be proportional to the time a faction has invested in it. If all it took you was an hour of work/fighting to get that thing, losing it a day later isn't the end of the world and you aren't demotivated from going and trying to take it back.
The exact details on that are probably best left to another suggestion thread, though.
The exact details on that are probably best left to another suggestion thread, though.
Last edited:
1. Stations can be much bigger than ships, so I don't think 150m long hangar would be any problem. Right now I'm worried that there is not enough reason to really build big stations.
2. I'd make them vulnerable. That creates additional challenge when building stations, as you need safe corridors, both for important personel and internal cargo transportation.
Also camping outside the station require smart engineering, lookout points (windows are protected as well), protected hangar exits, ect.
All that for system where ships are safe only in closed hangars, but works for docking-safety as well.
2. I'd make them vulnerable. That creates additional challenge when building stations, as you need safe corridors, both for important personel and internal cargo transportation.
Also camping outside the station require smart engineering, lookout points (windows are protected as well), protected hangar exits, ect.
All that for system where ships are safe only in closed hangars, but works for docking-safety as well.
I feel like the "The Great Trading Port" is underrepresented because 'the juice is not worth the squeeze'. The attempt to implement them, and dealing with all of the various mechanics that would need to be implemented to allow them to reasonably function is immense, and the payoff is that they likely won't work as well as hoped anyway.
As far as comprehensive safezones not hurting warbase paradigm: I can already see 2 ways:
Without a hard shell system, you cannot prevent people from entering your airspace and gathering intel about you and your station. Sure, you can attempt to kill them, but an extremely speedy flyby that drops off 5 endos will be almost impossible to stop, and they will be able to gather all the intel they want. All warfare is based on deception, and you if you can't prevent info, that's a significant 'hurt'. Only your station is safe, not your airspace, not your information.
The second 'hurt' is one I already described. One of the most common activities I would want to engage in on my station is to test things. Shoot armor configurations/ship design sections. Build ships and shoot them to test armor types, do science info gathering, etc. Practice dogfight with real ships and real ammo. Have mock FPS fights with friends. Shoot a buddy's head off for making a bad pun, etc. Always-on godmode prevents all of this. Disabling any of that (via a setting/toggle) also disables your only form of protection. I'd feel MUCH safer by preventing undesirables from even getting close, rather than just being in godmode.
Excellent point on it being "faction chores". You're right. Perhaps the station could automate scans for mounted or handheld weapons in the hard shell system to prevent this issue.
Yeah that would largely resolve that issue, but also open up more and more opportunities for "true griefing" as in, +3 allies being able to troll people by trapping ships, trap the spawn locations of endos, preventing people from taking off, etc. Yes, you can just revoke the +3, but then you're back in reactionary, faction chores territory, especially since a very limited number of people will be able to change that kind of large-impact setting.
As far as comprehensive safezones not hurting warbase paradigm: I can already see 2 ways:
Without a hard shell system, you cannot prevent people from entering your airspace and gathering intel about you and your station. Sure, you can attempt to kill them, but an extremely speedy flyby that drops off 5 endos will be almost impossible to stop, and they will be able to gather all the intel they want. All warfare is based on deception, and you if you can't prevent info, that's a significant 'hurt'. Only your station is safe, not your airspace, not your information.
The second 'hurt' is one I already described. One of the most common activities I would want to engage in on my station is to test things. Shoot armor configurations/ship design sections. Build ships and shoot them to test armor types, do science info gathering, etc. Practice dogfight with real ships and real ammo. Have mock FPS fights with friends. Shoot a buddy's head off for making a bad pun, etc. Always-on godmode prevents all of this. Disabling any of that (via a setting/toggle) also disables your only form of protection. I'd feel MUCH safer by preventing undesirables from even getting close, rather than just being in godmode.
Excellent point on it being "faction chores". You're right. Perhaps the station could automate scans for mounted or handheld weapons in the hard shell system to prevent this issue.
Yeah that would largely resolve that issue, but also open up more and more opportunities for "true griefing" as in, +3 allies being able to troll people by trapping ships, trap the spawn locations of endos, preventing people from taking off, etc. Yes, you can just revoke the +3, but then you're back in reactionary, faction chores territory, especially since a very limited number of people will be able to change that kind of large-impact setting.
All that can be solved by building the station properly.
You can design it in a way that hides all the ships, cargo, stationary turrets and other valuable information. Your enemies would only see external shell.
Build enclosed testing hangars/arenas.
That is in the system where only station itself is protected. So you can just shoot trolls/bad pun buddies.
You can design it in a way that hides all the ships, cargo, stationary turrets and other valuable information. Your enemies would only see external shell.
Build enclosed testing hangars/arenas.
That is in the system where only station itself is protected. So you can just shoot trolls/bad pun buddies.
I don't know, Star Wars Galaxies is one of the few games that pulled it off and it's talked about very fondly by those who experienced it in its prime. It's something I would personally very much enjoy (I'm big on direct player-to-player interaction, both constructive and destructive). But that's just my personal opinion on the matter. I do, however, believe that Frozenbyte are very interested in making what feels like a living world, and player-made social hubs are the strongest "indicator species" of a healthy ecosystem in that regard.
Maybe it's heavy-handed, but you could combine a hard shell with an internal protection field if this was your concern. Combining both lets you explicitly exclude hostiles, while also permitting neutrals with the promise that they too are safe from other neutrals while inside. There's also the meta of explicitly designing your station to conceal weapons and vulnerabilities, which could be rich here.
There's two parts of this: testing, and goofing off. Testing could be done by stepping outside of the safe zone. Remember that in my proposal, safe zones are pretty tight and don't extend much beyond the physical extent of the station. (Worth noting that the dev-run safe zones in the starting area are comparatively massive, and that's already in the game.) As far as goofing off, yeah, that's true, but there's plenty of opportunities to do that while you're out in space as well, especially since you can reattach severed parts that you've just shot off your buddy. It's fun and it's valuable, but it's low on my personal priority list compared to the other intended uses of a station.
Yeah, the biggest issue with safe zones is physical obstruction, caging people in, bumping them out, and so on. Having written a game physics engine or two, I know this is difficult to solve technically as well. I liked the idea that ships can "anchor" to the station at specific spots and become immovable, but even that isn't perfect.
Maybe it's heavy-handed, but you could combine a hard shell with an internal protection field if this was your concern. Combining both lets you explicitly exclude hostiles, while also permitting neutrals with the promise that they too are safe from other neutrals while inside. There's also the meta of explicitly designing your station to conceal weapons and vulnerabilities, which could be rich here.
There's two parts of this: testing, and goofing off. Testing could be done by stepping outside of the safe zone. Remember that in my proposal, safe zones are pretty tight and don't extend much beyond the physical extent of the station. (Worth noting that the dev-run safe zones in the starting area are comparatively massive, and that's already in the game.) As far as goofing off, yeah, that's true, but there's plenty of opportunities to do that while you're out in space as well, especially since you can reattach severed parts that you've just shot off your buddy. It's fun and it's valuable, but it's low on my personal priority list compared to the other intended uses of a station.
Yeah, the biggest issue with safe zones is physical obstruction, caging people in, bumping them out, and so on. Having written a game physics engine or two, I know this is difficult to solve technically as well. I liked the idea that ships can "anchor" to the station at specific spots and become immovable, but even that isn't perfect.
Actually, I like this as a very reasonable compromise. The devs could implement whichever system is quickest and easiest to get in place for early stages of EA, and then implement more as the features are completed.
Having both also allows for having different tiers of station cores. All cores would be expensive, but perhaps you could have a 'discount' version that only 'has power enough for' the hard shell, and the full-powered core gives full functionality while costing more. Given that only larger social hub stations, or possibly stations of huge groups that don't want to risk one of their large number messing things up, would want the upgraded core, they could likely afford it. Also note that the cores would function the same in terms of the siege aspect of things, with neither having more health or anything, not giving the larger group an advantage in that way.
Having both also allows for having different tiers of station cores. All cores would be expensive, but perhaps you could have a 'discount' version that only 'has power enough for' the hard shell, and the full-powered core gives full functionality while costing more. Given that only larger social hub stations, or possibly stations of huge groups that don't want to risk one of their large number messing things up, would want the upgraded core, they could likely afford it. Also note that the cores would function the same in terms of the siege aspect of things, with neither having more health or anything, not giving the larger group an advantage in that way.
Just a heads up, devs have described the safezones as being big bubbles where everything but military ships with their "hey, I'm a military ship" transponders on becomes invulnerable and iirc has their weapons fire disabled, station lots may also be immune to physics, as in ships can fly through them without interacting with any buildings in that space.
Yeah, I have serious concerns about the "military transponder" thing. So far as we've been told about it sounds rife for potential abuse, and PvP flagging systems are notorious fodder for scams and exploits. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until the game's in our hands for testing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't survive long after contact with PvP players. I think the least exploitable approach is to just treat a ship as a ship and not to ascribe intent or purpose to it that may not be true in practice.
It's not just sounding "rife" for abuse, it is rife for abuse. Non military shield ship with military ship inside with guns. you can't defeat the outer shell and the guns inside still work. Only real way to defeat it i can think of is to let factions choose what ships they consider military, but then that just makes safezones useless for anyone as every ship can then be called a military one and shot at.
Yeah, that's one of a few issues I anticipate with it. There's also lots of weird cases with ramming and physical obstruction, or creating debris that might strike other ships. Not to mention the opportunity for scammers to trick newbies into "combat flagging" their ships (which is pretty common in some other games).
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 9
Totally understand why the devs went with the flagging system, it's very easy to implement.
The two objective timer based system Recatek describes, would take alot more work but something like it seems necessary.
I really like the function of the inhibitor, but the defender objective should probably be some sort of module you put on a ship, maybe it could even buff that ship in some way? make it much sturdier? maybe it makes the ship glow? There could be a cap on the number of defender modules per station or not I dunno. it Just seems like a single objective that has to be blown up on foot would encourage the defender to just fill that objective with bots and lock it down with aoe spam, which is fine for the inhibitor because blowing it up is only something you'll want to do when there's overwhelming odds on your side.
if the defenders are defending a ship/ships, well the game seems to be built around ships so there are a lot more options for tuning the system out of the box.
The two objective timer based system Recatek describes, would take alot more work but something like it seems necessary.
I really like the function of the inhibitor, but the defender objective should probably be some sort of module you put on a ship, maybe it could even buff that ship in some way? make it much sturdier? maybe it makes the ship glow? There could be a cap on the number of defender modules per station or not I dunno. it Just seems like a single objective that has to be blown up on foot would encourage the defender to just fill that objective with bots and lock it down with aoe spam, which is fine for the inhibitor because blowing it up is only something you'll want to do when there's overwhelming odds on your side.
if the defenders are defending a ship/ships, well the game seems to be built around ships so there are a lot more options for tuning the system out of the box.
My only concern with one or both objectives being mobile is that it encourages a given side to avoid fighting and constantly disengage. I've been in situations in PvP where the two sides had no way to "pin down" the other and so they just danced around each other in circles rather than fighting -- cue the Benny Hill theme song. Fixed-point objectives force fights because there's no other choice, you have to butt heads at that location. It's why competitive games often have fixed point objectives, since simply having a team deathmatch or something can create either very campy or very passive/evasive gameplay.
I agree that the core being stationary is an open invitation to camp and spam it. Some of that can be controlled by the "level design" of the core on Frozenbyte's part, since I'm assuming it would be placed like a station module. If it has multiple entrances and such, then it would be more difficult to lock down. Even in games like Planetside 2, which does not always have the best level design, cramming 100 people into a single room is often suicide due to the fact that the attackers can just AOE spam you back and net tons of kills for how close you all are together. Starbase also invites engineering solutions to this problem. Imagine constructing a "testudo" style shell and pushing it in a door with you to breach past the explosion spam at the entrance. That's a compelling fantasy that I think very much fits the Starbase ethos.
I agree that the core being stationary is an open invitation to camp and spam it. Some of that can be controlled by the "level design" of the core on Frozenbyte's part, since I'm assuming it would be placed like a station module. If it has multiple entrances and such, then it would be more difficult to lock down. Even in games like Planetside 2, which does not always have the best level design, cramming 100 people into a single room is often suicide due to the fact that the attackers can just AOE spam you back and net tons of kills for how close you all are together. Starbase also invites engineering solutions to this problem. Imagine constructing a "testudo" style shell and pushing it in a door with you to breach past the explosion spam at the entrance. That's a compelling fantasy that I think very much fits the Starbase ethos.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 9
I just worry that "make a good fun to play shooter level for an arbitrary number of people" is a tough ask, and makes the game more generic, it's a spaceship game!
By making the objective a module it plugs into the systems already in the game, and keeps the action in space.
You're right that the defender strategy would be to engage as little as possible but now you have this module that you can tweak to help mitigate that, maybe the module is so heavy or requires so much power it limits the speed of the ship, or maybe it just puts an arbitrary cap on ship speed, you could give it a regeneration field, or a dome shield, or both to make sure it's still a hard target to crack.
By making the objective a module it plugs into the systems already in the game, and keeps the action in space.
You're right that the defender strategy would be to engage as little as possible but now you have this module that you can tweak to help mitigate that, maybe the module is so heavy or requires so much power it limits the speed of the ship, or maybe it just puts an arbitrary cap on ship speed, you could give it a regeneration field, or a dome shield, or both to make sure it's still a hard target to crack.
I'm trying to picture the logistics of what happens with a moving objective in this case, be it the inhibitor, the station core, or both. Are they immobile during the siege waiting period (prior to the window)? If not, what happens if they simply leave before the siege starts? What happens if they leave the area during the siege, or is there some sort of maximum radius keeping them there? Certainly forcing them to be big and slow would help prevent fruitless chase scenarios though.
No matter how brilliantly tactical tail-chasing may be, I don't think it's particularly fun over the span of 2-3 hours. I think it's safe to say that most people generally go into space ship PvP to blow up space ships. Part of the challenge that every PvP MMO has had to face in designing these systems is making sure the optimal strategy aligns with the most fun strategy. Avoiding anti-patterns like "fruitlessly chase each other in circles" is an important part of that.
I address it earlier in the thread, but having two static objectives does address this problem. If the attackers don't want to fight or don't show up at all (a.k.a. a "troll siege"), then the defenders can end the fight early by neutralizing the inhibitor, rather than being held hostage guarding against nothing for 2-3 hours. If the defenders don't want to fight and don't want to show up, the attackers simply end the fight by neutralizing the core, and use that extra time for more salvaging and other fun things. A static two-objective system is, IMO, the best way to make sure that all the time spent during the siege is quality fighting time, not waiting or busywork time.
No matter how brilliantly tactical tail-chasing may be, I don't think it's particularly fun over the span of 2-3 hours. I think it's safe to say that most people generally go into space ship PvP to blow up space ships. Part of the challenge that every PvP MMO has had to face in designing these systems is making sure the optimal strategy aligns with the most fun strategy. Avoiding anti-patterns like "fruitlessly chase each other in circles" is an important part of that.
I address it earlier in the thread, but having two static objectives does address this problem. If the attackers don't want to fight or don't show up at all (a.k.a. a "troll siege"), then the defenders can end the fight early by neutralizing the inhibitor, rather than being held hostage guarding against nothing for 2-3 hours. If the defenders don't want to fight and don't want to show up, the attackers simply end the fight by neutralizing the core, and use that extra time for more salvaging and other fun things. A static two-objective system is, IMO, the best way to make sure that all the time spent during the siege is quality fighting time, not waiting or busywork time.
Last edited: