That's fair. I don't think you could construct such a system without it being artificial either. Let's just hope that the resource cost of starting a siege prevents noobstomping from becoming so extreme that the big factions halt the influx of new players altogether. That's really the big concern on that point.
Station Siege Mechanics
- Thread starter Recatek
- Start date
Think you guys oughta cool down a bit, as this is just a suggestion thread for a concept that may never see the light of day. To that end, though, I think this would work extremely well as a foundation for safezone mechanics: objectives and spice of life changes can be added and subtracted to the concept without needing extensive reworking, and it is as reasonable and simple of a concept as I think can be made while still being fair to both sides. You may not be able to raid a large station on the spur of a moment, but smaller stations that forego the (presumably significant) expense of a safezone are still fair game, and one way or another you get out at least what you put into the system.
At most, I'd suggest adding a variety of interesting objectives for the actual warfare. Perhaps there could be 'modifier' structures that need to be brought along with the inhibitor (or installed alongside the safezone core), and influence the battle in some way? Destroying them takes precious time and resources, but could give your forces the edge they need for the remainder of the objectives.
At most, I'd suggest adding a variety of interesting objectives for the actual warfare. Perhaps there could be 'modifier' structures that need to be brought along with the inhibitor (or installed alongside the safezone core), and influence the battle in some way? Destroying them takes precious time and resources, but could give your forces the edge they need for the remainder of the objectives.
You don't understand, Dusty, we're discussing which of all our ideas would be best, it'll get heated even when we're all trying to stay cool- you notice I flop between trying to eviscerate an idea because it rubs me wrong in either its design or intent and playing with compromises to it as the idea tumbles around for a while. I get not a lot of people enjoy treating ideas and concepts as serious business while also having fun, but uh- y'know, some of us do split the difference. It's important to find the good ideas but it's also important to increase the amount of times you have a good idea, take that as you will.
Safezones are integral to station functions, every station has a safezone, big stations have bigger safezones that are ostensibly harder to take down via Dev-mode suppression, or so they say (nothing is really concrete). One of the problems I have with Recatek's idea is it's a one-size-fits-all solution with exactly one resolution path (no variety of interesting objectives in the slightest) and that path benefits only the biggest and nastiest group- it's not really conducive to fun or constructive campaigns in a multiplayer world- and the only two justifications I've seen for having such an arrangement is 1) everyone else does it, and 2) it doesn't have exploits. Justification 1 is an invalid argument and shouldn't be respected and justification 2 is a baldfaced lie. Outside of that the inhibitor method isn't really useful for anything that another conceptual mechanic could do- BUT as I've stated within the last few posts, it has led to interesting propositions and this thread has at least persuaded me to tolerate the existence of siege windows as a necessary evil. So, all things considered, Recatek, despite his inability to raise decent debate that I'm satisfied with on a cognitive or ethical level, or avoid being as insulting as I've probably been by outright ignoring counterpoints raised against or as a compromise to his idea, has actually managed to gain some ground in my camp.
Safezones are integral to station functions, every station has a safezone, big stations have bigger safezones that are ostensibly harder to take down via Dev-mode suppression, or so they say (nothing is really concrete). One of the problems I have with Recatek's idea is it's a one-size-fits-all solution with exactly one resolution path (no variety of interesting objectives in the slightest) and that path benefits only the biggest and nastiest group- it's not really conducive to fun or constructive campaigns in a multiplayer world- and the only two justifications I've seen for having such an arrangement is 1) everyone else does it, and 2) it doesn't have exploits. Justification 1 is an invalid argument and shouldn't be respected and justification 2 is a baldfaced lie. Outside of that the inhibitor method isn't really useful for anything that another conceptual mechanic could do- BUT as I've stated within the last few posts, it has led to interesting propositions and this thread has at least persuaded me to tolerate the existence of siege windows as a necessary evil. So, all things considered, Recatek, despite his inability to raise decent debate that I'm satisfied with on a cognitive or ethical level, or avoid being as insulting as I've probably been by outright ignoring counterpoints raised against or as a compromise to his idea, has actually managed to gain some ground in my camp.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 9
I actually read it a few times to make sure I knew what you were saying, and I'm still not exactly sure what you meant but.
If stations are always vulnerable then you're depending on stations to always be defended. Otherwise when the attack fleet rolls in there won't be a defense fleet obviously. So like just there right there step 1. in order to defend a station you need a standing defense fleet. That's the problem with the station always being vulnerable, even if you just defend in like peak hours because you don't really care if you lose it overnight or whatever, still when you are defending it there's a good chance all you're going to be doing is staring into space, which suuuucks.
I guess you could say it's fun for the attackers, they just need to find any station at all and boom they have a video game, even if it's undefended knocking down sandcastles is sort of fun so why build a sandcastle to stare into space, when you can be the bully? Now there's a sandcastle shortage and a surplus of bullies, and just a pvp zone I guess, very few stations no player factions, just like I dunno maybe a guy wants to get a rare asteroid and he gets chased, that's a video game thing that could happen in that zone, seems like a waste of a cool station system though.
If stations are always vulnerable then you're depending on stations to always be defended. Otherwise when the attack fleet rolls in there won't be a defense fleet obviously. So like just there right there step 1. in order to defend a station you need a standing defense fleet. That's the problem with the station always being vulnerable, even if you just defend in like peak hours because you don't really care if you lose it overnight or whatever, still when you are defending it there's a good chance all you're going to be doing is staring into space, which suuuucks.
I guess you could say it's fun for the attackers, they just need to find any station at all and boom they have a video game, even if it's undefended knocking down sandcastles is sort of fun so why build a sandcastle to stare into space, when you can be the bully? Now there's a sandcastle shortage and a surplus of bullies, and just a pvp zone I guess, very few stations no player factions, just like I dunno maybe a guy wants to get a rare asteroid and he gets chased, that's a video game thing that could happen in that zone, seems like a waste of a cool station system though.
Keep in mind, the core of dev-mode safezone suppression operates on a long enough time frame that a station should be able to notice the siege happening, notify all defenders offline, gather everyone who can get on, and react to the assault before the SZ drops. Recatek's inhibitors just drop safezones without any interplay between stages, which is... really boring and artificial- my version, again, tries to strike a balance, SZ drop would be along a timeline of several minutes as the siege window opens and both fleets jump from light skirmishing during the near-time wait into full activity with potential for reactive deployment dilemmas coming back from the Reprisal Window sieges. In my and the dev-mode, the siege can have multiple levels of tactical and strategic layers generating emergent gameplay, Recatek's inhibitors don't provide any of this potential gameplay and more or less see it as badwrongfun to be rejected without much thought.
You can always add extra mechanics, but I wouldn't say that inhibitors encourage "hurry up and wait" gameplay, or suppress any kind of emergent gameplay. The attackers have a vested interest in blockading the station they've placed their inhibitor at, to starve the station of supplies and ships that it may dearly need in the coming battle; obviously, defenders have a similar objective.
Inhibitor mechanics have a max of what 3 days between anchoring and siege and he's stated he doesn't want either party to be skirmishing between those two points in time, right? So nobody's going to starve anybody out in his ideal, his goal for for two fleets to gather for a big multi-man duel, it's just smashing things together in an inescapable instance. Mind you, I completely expect attackers to blockade a station during the wait period to whittle down the defenders that get bored with being walled in their station for three days.
That's worse bullying in my book, than having siege windows that auto-online or having a siegeable station/whatever that can broadcast the siege declaration and open the nearest window available on the target (i.e. within 24hrs) at the cost of doing the same to itself. A bully having to make themselves and one of their valuable stations vulnerable to even try to bully someone seems like a decent protection for other types of players. Inhibitors just give all the power to the attackers, the mechanics to create a symmetrical field don't stop either side from having overwhelming numbers or using any kind of PvP cheese that might pop up and as already stated just making them expensive means nothing when they're consumed when used, no part of it is balanced and it doesn't really show any chance of delivering on any of its promises as a system. I get he's probably trying to make it good and effective, I'm really trying to avoid bashing it and using anything promising in the idea, which is the whole reason I came up with the siege station idea, but there's no rationale behind the design choices that went into the inhibitor besides it being an MMO tradition that works because it's only slightly less worse than a free-for-all. If we actually want something fun that won't dominate the rest of the game with tedious bully-mongering, falling back on existing systems isn't going to do it, this is a game mechanic that actually needs to have its boundaries pushed. Worst case, we just go with the devs idea, anything can be besieged at any time and it'll take hours for the attackers to break the safezone open without resistance.
That's worse bullying in my book, than having siege windows that auto-online or having a siegeable station/whatever that can broadcast the siege declaration and open the nearest window available on the target (i.e. within 24hrs) at the cost of doing the same to itself. A bully having to make themselves and one of their valuable stations vulnerable to even try to bully someone seems like a decent protection for other types of players. Inhibitors just give all the power to the attackers, the mechanics to create a symmetrical field don't stop either side from having overwhelming numbers or using any kind of PvP cheese that might pop up and as already stated just making them expensive means nothing when they're consumed when used, no part of it is balanced and it doesn't really show any chance of delivering on any of its promises as a system. I get he's probably trying to make it good and effective, I'm really trying to avoid bashing it and using anything promising in the idea, which is the whole reason I came up with the siege station idea, but there's no rationale behind the design choices that went into the inhibitor besides it being an MMO tradition that works because it's only slightly less worse than a free-for-all. If we actually want something fun that won't dominate the rest of the game with tedious bully-mongering, falling back on existing systems isn't going to do it, this is a game mechanic that actually needs to have its boundaries pushed. Worst case, we just go with the devs idea, anything can be besieged at any time and it'll take hours for the attackers to break the safezone open without resistance.
Another side idea: What if inhibitor isn't single use? What if in case of successful defence inhibitor change hands to defenders, who can use it to retaliate.
Successful attack should still make it (and the core) go boom. It's a price for forcing defenders to show up.
He stated between 36 and 50h (attackers choice - station siege window is public knowledge).
That's 1.5-2 days, way less than 3.
Personally I'd make it 24-48. But I'm a man with a lot of free time.
And nobody is forced to do anything between declaration, but you still can do it. Ride convoys, cut off supply lines, spread propaganda, hunt miners, ect. Just normal not-station-related everyday war skirmishes.
Also neither yours nor devs system protects in any way from overwhelming numbers or cheesing PvP. And they both allow a lot of cheese by allowing use of safe zone mechanic during battle (take-down phase).
And could you list all the exploits and cheese you predict to happen if this system get implemented? That would help improve or re-think it.
Successful attack should still make it (and the core) go boom. It's a price for forcing defenders to show up.
He stated between 36 and 50h (attackers choice - station siege window is public knowledge).
That's 1.5-2 days, way less than 3.
Personally I'd make it 24-48. But I'm a man with a lot of free time.
And nobody is forced to do anything between declaration, but you still can do it. Ride convoys, cut off supply lines, spread propaganda, hunt miners, ect. Just normal not-station-related everyday war skirmishes.
Also neither yours nor devs system protects in any way from overwhelming numbers or cheesing PvP. And they both allow a lot of cheese by allowing use of safe zone mechanic during battle (take-down phase).
And could you list all the exploits and cheese you predict to happen if this system get implemented? That would help improve or re-think it.
more than a day (i.e. until the next window) feels like a stupidly long wait if you already have a desired window picked out, I have very little free time and it can disappear because of things happening, that wait is basically a threat that real life could happen and ruin my prep when I could've defended now- whereas the guy with endless free time can always respond to my siege attempts and gains days to grind his preps and people into position
it's not that the original system or the compromises protect more, they just have fewer restrictions- when you say "do it this way, there's no advantage, but do it anyways" I have no incentive to ante in on the mechanic. So, when you tell me this version is great because it's fair and the most balanced, and I look at it, and I don't see any of that, so all I can ask is: in what way is such a convoluted and painful mechanic so much better as to justify preferring it over the others or some manner of compromise?
it's not that the original system or the compromises protect more, they just have fewer restrictions- when you say "do it this way, there's no advantage, but do it anyways" I have no incentive to ante in on the mechanic. So, when you tell me this version is great because it's fair and the most balanced, and I look at it, and I don't see any of that, so all I can ask is: in what way is such a convoluted and painful mechanic so much better as to justify preferring it over the others or some manner of compromise?
Which I absolutely despise, like everyone does, FozzieSOV is junk, but the meta is so developed around it none of the big factions will tolerate any changes that aren't expressly to their particular advantage- I would like to avoid having a junk system that everyone hates but can't conscience changing it because they might lose ground during the change.
Ah, but, such a huge investment of resources should automatically get special treatment, so just having a siege window when the safezone can be dropped is a "massive vulnerability" that needs a safeguard. I actually completely forgot that the safezone itself is a huge protective gimme and took it on its face. Considering that, the idea of adding even more mechanics to protect the protection does seem like it needs to be called to attention.
EDIT: New Mechanic for Inhibitors - Sanction Vouchers
Concept: besieging a station gives the offending company or faction a debuff making it easier to besiege stations they own and/or debuffing their ability to make several sieges in rapid succession
Effect 1-Voucher Application: anchoring an Inhibitor to open a station's Siege Window applies a debuff, called a Sanction Voucher, to the company or faction that owns the inhibitor. This Voucher lasts for an amount of time between one day up to a week and if a stack of Vouchers accumulates only one decays at a time.
Effect 2-Tyrant Debuff: companies/factions with at least one Sanction Voucher take longer to anchor their Inhibitors, during which time the device remains vulnerable to attack or capture- once anchored the device becomes safezoned until the Siege Window begins, as normal.
Effect 3-Reprisal Buff: stations owned by a company/faction with at least one Sanction Voucher are more vulnerable to being sieged, Inhibitors anchor on their stations faster and the Siege Windows last longer.
Special Effect-Mercenary Contracts: if a mercenary group is paid to capture/destroy a station they can take a contract with the buyer, the contract determines up-front costs, time limits, and final payout and insurance coverage for the mercenaries; however, when the Inhibitor is anchored, the buying company/faction that hired the mercenaries gains a Sanction Voucher instead of the mercenary group. While a mercenary group can take the station and then turn it over to the buyer, this contract rule allows them to secure payment and ensure terms are honored by the buyer and at least discourages the mercenaries from being the target of reprisal attacks for simply taking a job.
Special Effect-Brinkmanship Cancellation: Sanction Vouchers are tagged with the company/faction offended by the siege, if two companies/factions have Sanction Vouchers belonging to each other they cancel out their effects on a voucher-per-voucher basis. This special effect ensures that two powers can be mutually belligerent with little disruption of back-and-forth sieges, slows down a very aggressive player that deploys large amounts of inhibitors in rapid succession, and also dissuades a company/faction from aggressively besieging multiple companies that are not part of the same faction at the same time. Additionally, it incentivizes alliances between factions/companies as they can benefit from a greater buff/debuff ratio than the defending faction in tit-for-tat warfare and allows even a small company to become a large asset in a long-standing war where vouchers have built up on both sides.
EDIT 2: thinking about the anchoring process, instead of a corrosion aura or whatever, what if the inhibitor created an unsafezone aura of several hundred meters around itself until fully anchored, meaning the whole civilian shell exploit wouldn't exist (at least until it became possible to make ships bigger than the unsafezone...) and something something minimum anchor range is at least 1km to prevent abuse against stations and something something inhibitors self-destruct if they enter a safezone not owned by their company/faction which would prevent further station abuse or company-hopping an inhibitor to avoid Sanction Vouchers, etc, it'd also encourage companies to keep their own inhibitors away from their own stations once built to clear its interference with their own safezone, making them vulnerable assets to keep around and stockpile (what if an inhibitor creates an unsafezone while being constructed at a station allowing the facilities nearby to be sabotaged by infiltrators, oooh, that sounds kinda cool- it could even grow the zone in radius as the component modules are assembled around it to create a ramping vulnerability)
EDIT 3: TL;DR- Lots of Mechanics Ideas, Very Dense Writing
Core Concept
I'm gonna elaborate on the unsafezone a bit more because it also seems kinda interesting. So, an inhibitor needs to be constructed, probably out of several modules that generate each effect, from anchoring, having ownership/being capturable, opening the siege window, and being invulnerable while anchored, and then have additional structure and plating installed around it for protection, power, and movement. Let's say each module combines to create the total unsafezone, and as each module is built from the anchoring core up to the invulnerability field, the size of this unsafezone grows in 50m increments. So as each module is completed more of the host station around itself becomes vulnerable until the inhibitor is finally completed and moved away.
Construction
Now nothing tells anybody that an inhibitor is being constructed outside of this growing bubble of cancellation within the station's safezone, so a well-built station might prevent anyone from getting near the spot where the inhibitor is being built- but regardless, an espionage payer or inforbroker could wind up finding out, etc, etc interesting gameplay options here, and a lightning raid or sabotage mission could be launched against the facility to destroy the inhibitor and/or damage station sections within the unsafezone. It's worth noting that I envision the inhibitor being constructed in some kind of station lot where you begin with the anchor module and the lot automatically adds the blueprint hologram for the next module. I'm assuming these four modules (anchor, ownership, siege, invulnerability) are fairly large and will take a few minutes each, minimum, and a large amount of materials to fill in with build tools, so the exceptional durability of the inhibitor iirc would be based on the sheer amount of materials it takes to build and the multi-part nature of its construction.
Corrosion Aura Redux
If voxels limit how much material can be in a single unit of space, I'd add optional "shielding" modules around the anchor, siege device ("siege beam"?), and invulnerability field and have each emanate corrosion while each part is active- first this would necessitate adding the shielding to block the corrosion coming from the modules; two, make the build time a variable choice depending on how much durability you wanted; and third, make the inhibitor more vulnerable to damage the longer it operated, so anchoring to siege a station and then having to wait longer than anticipated for the window to open would add a nice little set of variability to the attackers planning, further, taking longer to end the siege means the inhibitor becomes increasingly vulnerable to damage, with or without the shielding. This feels like a way more interesting take on the corrosion aura in the original idea and less like some gamey exploit-prevention- it also adds important long-term choices to the attacker instead of just pumping out inhibitors that always function in an identical manner there's a range that can be selected from and sectionalised durability can be mixed and matched to meet a conqueror's needs- I find this element really, really, interesting as a player and designer and hope you give it due consideration.
Espionage Gameplay Opportunities
Building inhibitors in a lot feels intuitive and puts a range limitation on attackers, since they will have to move an inhibitor from its build site to the target station, which means infrastructure and locality are important factors on the strategic layer of planning sieges. Further, because the "unsafezone mechanic" alleviates cheesing concerns, the inhibitor itself can be freely built upon in any way shape or form and it can be a towed object or have its own engines, weapons, and maze-like armored corridors built over it with little worry about exploits- it's a big, awkward, and heavy thing that will slow down and eventually immobilize any ship it's made a part of, we already know that makes it vulnerable enough during travel and while being anchored. Having the unsafezone while being built leads to potential espionage/infiltration gameplay potential which is actually really hard to create in most games.
The way this idea is shaping up it'll be emergent espionage dependent on the skill of sleuths, station designers, and company security and not some instanced and predictable simulacrum. It'll be difficult for spies to find inhibitor build sites, which means the station owner only needs to worry about making sure the build site is hard to access, whether that means it being a remote or private station, or smart station design and walled-off areas on certain company members can access, or an active guard rotation and dedicated counter-intrusion operatives looking for signs of infiltrators- passive defenses and the limited telltale of an inhibitor under construction mean this whole section of gameplay won't become a second life for players involved in it; lastly the exterior structure around the inhibitor can be customised in light of any worries about spies. etc, to make the build process faster/less intensive/more dependent of fleet support to mitigate how long an inhibitor remains vulnerable in its construction lot.
EDIT: New Mechanic for Inhibitors - Sanction Vouchers
Concept: besieging a station gives the offending company or faction a debuff making it easier to besiege stations they own and/or debuffing their ability to make several sieges in rapid succession
Effect 1-Voucher Application: anchoring an Inhibitor to open a station's Siege Window applies a debuff, called a Sanction Voucher, to the company or faction that owns the inhibitor. This Voucher lasts for an amount of time between one day up to a week and if a stack of Vouchers accumulates only one decays at a time.
Effect 2-Tyrant Debuff: companies/factions with at least one Sanction Voucher take longer to anchor their Inhibitors, during which time the device remains vulnerable to attack or capture- once anchored the device becomes safezoned until the Siege Window begins, as normal.
Effect 3-Reprisal Buff: stations owned by a company/faction with at least one Sanction Voucher are more vulnerable to being sieged, Inhibitors anchor on their stations faster and the Siege Windows last longer.
Special Effect-Mercenary Contracts: if a mercenary group is paid to capture/destroy a station they can take a contract with the buyer, the contract determines up-front costs, time limits, and final payout and insurance coverage for the mercenaries; however, when the Inhibitor is anchored, the buying company/faction that hired the mercenaries gains a Sanction Voucher instead of the mercenary group. While a mercenary group can take the station and then turn it over to the buyer, this contract rule allows them to secure payment and ensure terms are honored by the buyer and at least discourages the mercenaries from being the target of reprisal attacks for simply taking a job.
Special Effect-Brinkmanship Cancellation: Sanction Vouchers are tagged with the company/faction offended by the siege, if two companies/factions have Sanction Vouchers belonging to each other they cancel out their effects on a voucher-per-voucher basis. This special effect ensures that two powers can be mutually belligerent with little disruption of back-and-forth sieges, slows down a very aggressive player that deploys large amounts of inhibitors in rapid succession, and also dissuades a company/faction from aggressively besieging multiple companies that are not part of the same faction at the same time. Additionally, it incentivizes alliances between factions/companies as they can benefit from a greater buff/debuff ratio than the defending faction in tit-for-tat warfare and allows even a small company to become a large asset in a long-standing war where vouchers have built up on both sides.
EDIT 2: thinking about the anchoring process, instead of a corrosion aura or whatever, what if the inhibitor created an unsafezone aura of several hundred meters around itself until fully anchored, meaning the whole civilian shell exploit wouldn't exist (at least until it became possible to make ships bigger than the unsafezone...) and something something minimum anchor range is at least 1km to prevent abuse against stations and something something inhibitors self-destruct if they enter a safezone not owned by their company/faction which would prevent further station abuse or company-hopping an inhibitor to avoid Sanction Vouchers, etc, it'd also encourage companies to keep their own inhibitors away from their own stations once built to clear its interference with their own safezone, making them vulnerable assets to keep around and stockpile (what if an inhibitor creates an unsafezone while being constructed at a station allowing the facilities nearby to be sabotaged by infiltrators, oooh, that sounds kinda cool- it could even grow the zone in radius as the component modules are assembled around it to create a ramping vulnerability)
EDIT 3: TL;DR- Lots of Mechanics Ideas, Very Dense Writing
Core Concept
I'm gonna elaborate on the unsafezone a bit more because it also seems kinda interesting. So, an inhibitor needs to be constructed, probably out of several modules that generate each effect, from anchoring, having ownership/being capturable, opening the siege window, and being invulnerable while anchored, and then have additional structure and plating installed around it for protection, power, and movement. Let's say each module combines to create the total unsafezone, and as each module is built from the anchoring core up to the invulnerability field, the size of this unsafezone grows in 50m increments. So as each module is completed more of the host station around itself becomes vulnerable until the inhibitor is finally completed and moved away.
Construction
Now nothing tells anybody that an inhibitor is being constructed outside of this growing bubble of cancellation within the station's safezone, so a well-built station might prevent anyone from getting near the spot where the inhibitor is being built- but regardless, an espionage payer or inforbroker could wind up finding out, etc, etc interesting gameplay options here, and a lightning raid or sabotage mission could be launched against the facility to destroy the inhibitor and/or damage station sections within the unsafezone. It's worth noting that I envision the inhibitor being constructed in some kind of station lot where you begin with the anchor module and the lot automatically adds the blueprint hologram for the next module. I'm assuming these four modules (anchor, ownership, siege, invulnerability) are fairly large and will take a few minutes each, minimum, and a large amount of materials to fill in with build tools, so the exceptional durability of the inhibitor iirc would be based on the sheer amount of materials it takes to build and the multi-part nature of its construction.
Corrosion Aura Redux
If voxels limit how much material can be in a single unit of space, I'd add optional "shielding" modules around the anchor, siege device ("siege beam"?), and invulnerability field and have each emanate corrosion while each part is active- first this would necessitate adding the shielding to block the corrosion coming from the modules; two, make the build time a variable choice depending on how much durability you wanted; and third, make the inhibitor more vulnerable to damage the longer it operated, so anchoring to siege a station and then having to wait longer than anticipated for the window to open would add a nice little set of variability to the attackers planning, further, taking longer to end the siege means the inhibitor becomes increasingly vulnerable to damage, with or without the shielding. This feels like a way more interesting take on the corrosion aura in the original idea and less like some gamey exploit-prevention- it also adds important long-term choices to the attacker instead of just pumping out inhibitors that always function in an identical manner there's a range that can be selected from and sectionalised durability can be mixed and matched to meet a conqueror's needs- I find this element really, really, interesting as a player and designer and hope you give it due consideration.
Espionage Gameplay Opportunities
Building inhibitors in a lot feels intuitive and puts a range limitation on attackers, since they will have to move an inhibitor from its build site to the target station, which means infrastructure and locality are important factors on the strategic layer of planning sieges. Further, because the "unsafezone mechanic" alleviates cheesing concerns, the inhibitor itself can be freely built upon in any way shape or form and it can be a towed object or have its own engines, weapons, and maze-like armored corridors built over it with little worry about exploits- it's a big, awkward, and heavy thing that will slow down and eventually immobilize any ship it's made a part of, we already know that makes it vulnerable enough during travel and while being anchored. Having the unsafezone while being built leads to potential espionage/infiltration gameplay potential which is actually really hard to create in most games.
The way this idea is shaping up it'll be emergent espionage dependent on the skill of sleuths, station designers, and company security and not some instanced and predictable simulacrum. It'll be difficult for spies to find inhibitor build sites, which means the station owner only needs to worry about making sure the build site is hard to access, whether that means it being a remote or private station, or smart station design and walled-off areas on certain company members can access, or an active guard rotation and dedicated counter-intrusion operatives looking for signs of infiltrators- passive defenses and the limited telltale of an inhibitor under construction mean this whole section of gameplay won't become a second life for players involved in it; lastly the exterior structure around the inhibitor can be customised in light of any worries about spies. etc, to make the build process faster/less intensive/more dependent of fleet support to mitigate how long an inhibitor remains vulnerable in its construction lot.
Last edited:
A lot of ideas. That's good, keep them flowing.
But some of them are prone to exploits:
1. I don't think there will be much action during inhibitor anchoring. It's not announced, so there is almost no chance for defenders to rally enough forces to risk interception. So prolonging vulnerability window just forces attacking forces to keep starring into void for hours.
2. If laying siege is tied to a faction, what prevents it from creating dummy one person companies with the sole purpose of soaking debuffs? Even easier with mercenary contracts "our 1000 man faction is totally paid by that single man company to take this station"
3. AFAIK the idea is that inhibitor is anchored right outside the safe zone, not inside it.
So there is no civilian ship exploits there.
And the idea was also to remove whole civilian/military distinguishing altogether.
4. The idea to make inhibitor always unsafe is very interesting.
But I'm split on it.
On one hand, it prevents stockpiling them. Which is good.
On the other hand, the whole idea of safe zones and inhibitors it's to allow people to have life outside of the game. And making something unprotectable is against it.
Also the same as with anchoring inhibitors: there is very little chance of interception during inhibitor construction. Intercepting forces would have to know where and when the construction will happen, muster enough forces to challenge prepared enemy fleet and station, and travel there before construction is finished. 1 in 1000 chance to randomly have assault forces floating near enemy stations, unless you were just about to anchor inhibitor yourself.
So the only thing it changes is opening inhibitor construction to an inside job.... which can happen anyway, since faction members can already have permissions to destroy their own assets.
I'm not against it. It won't break anything. But I'm worried it won't bring much gameplay either. Just force players to build hangar around the construction site.... which they'll to anyway probably.
Maybe instead prevent inhibitors from being stockpiled in one place? If two inhibitors are in render range from each other for more than 24h, they blow up.
5. The idea that the longer the siege battle takes, the weaker inhibitor becomes is nice. It puts that time pressure on attackers. It kind of change hard time limit (i.e. after 3h it blows up) to soft time limit (the longer it takes, the more chance inhibitor will be blown by stray missile).
BTW the whole corrosive sphere around inhibitor/core purpose it's to make sure that there is some way to access it without digging tunnel through the plates.
The whole CTF idea recently was very gamey...
But maybe just force players to periodically visit their core/inhibitor to reset the cooldown? So it can last 15m between visits, otherwise it blows up. So you have to leave access corridor.
Also Burnside you're really advocating for unannounced skirmishes involving stations. What's your stance on making the safezone protect only the station itself and physically docked ships?
So anything in active use (undocked and outside of hangars) is free game, just like in the wild space.
But some of them are prone to exploits:
1. I don't think there will be much action during inhibitor anchoring. It's not announced, so there is almost no chance for defenders to rally enough forces to risk interception. So prolonging vulnerability window just forces attacking forces to keep starring into void for hours.
2. If laying siege is tied to a faction, what prevents it from creating dummy one person companies with the sole purpose of soaking debuffs? Even easier with mercenary contracts "our 1000 man faction is totally paid by that single man company to take this station"
3. AFAIK the idea is that inhibitor is anchored right outside the safe zone, not inside it.
So there is no civilian ship exploits there.
And the idea was also to remove whole civilian/military distinguishing altogether.
4. The idea to make inhibitor always unsafe is very interesting.
But I'm split on it.
On one hand, it prevents stockpiling them. Which is good.
On the other hand, the whole idea of safe zones and inhibitors it's to allow people to have life outside of the game. And making something unprotectable is against it.
Also the same as with anchoring inhibitors: there is very little chance of interception during inhibitor construction. Intercepting forces would have to know where and when the construction will happen, muster enough forces to challenge prepared enemy fleet and station, and travel there before construction is finished. 1 in 1000 chance to randomly have assault forces floating near enemy stations, unless you were just about to anchor inhibitor yourself.
So the only thing it changes is opening inhibitor construction to an inside job.... which can happen anyway, since faction members can already have permissions to destroy their own assets.
I'm not against it. It won't break anything. But I'm worried it won't bring much gameplay either. Just force players to build hangar around the construction site.... which they'll to anyway probably.
Maybe instead prevent inhibitors from being stockpiled in one place? If two inhibitors are in render range from each other for more than 24h, they blow up.
5. The idea that the longer the siege battle takes, the weaker inhibitor becomes is nice. It puts that time pressure on attackers. It kind of change hard time limit (i.e. after 3h it blows up) to soft time limit (the longer it takes, the more chance inhibitor will be blown by stray missile).
BTW the whole corrosive sphere around inhibitor/core purpose it's to make sure that there is some way to access it without digging tunnel through the plates.
The whole CTF idea recently was very gamey...
But maybe just force players to periodically visit their core/inhibitor to reset the cooldown? So it can last 15m between visits, otherwise it blows up. So you have to leave access corridor.
Also Burnside you're really advocating for unannounced skirmishes involving stations. What's your stance on making the safezone protect only the station itself and physically docked ships?
So anything in active use (undocked and outside of hangars) is free game, just like in the wild space.
Yeah, I'm not advocating for a massive increase in time, maybe as high as like 5% per voucher, which amounts to a maximum of +9min per voucher. Not too big to really detract from the, what? 3hr vigil during a normal anchoring, but enough of a window extension that some emergency relief force might have that little bit of a chance to deal a little bit of damage. I'm also assuming that once the inhibitor is anchored and goes invulnerable it can't be repaired either, so any damage done during the anchoring period stays until the siege starts, so defender's pulling hail mary attacks can have a pointful impact for their sacrifice.
My understanding is that the faction tied to the inhibitor is the one that gets the ownership if it's captured. So a mercenary contract would also shift ownership to the contract holder when/if they cap it. As far as shell companies cheesing their way out of the aggression markers? I dunno, that's a question of how selling/transferring stations works, maybe the safezone has its next siege window activated after a gift/sale and the trade is announced on the public markets owned by both companies- sure, they've avoided the Sanction hit, but now everyone with eyes on their stations is going to know there's a free-for-all siege about to open up, which would be the detractor of a merc group capping the station and then transferring it outside of a contract system, so the hiring party might actually prefer a merc under contract and the Sanction hit over giving everyone a free go at the property.
Depends on how large the safezone is, I'm also making the prediction that some attackers might want to position thei inhibitor closer and possibly inside of a safezone for various reason we can't forsee atm.
I mean, it doesn't necessarily harm the gameplay and the really good stories happen because those 1-in-1000 chances came up on the dice because of a conflux of circumstance, not because we increased the odds to 1-in-50; I think it's more interesting when he espionage doesn't absolutely require the organisation be directly infiltrated, that's only one type of infil work, and I'd like to see the other types of covert skullduggery get a chance to take place including stuff like a commando raid or lone catburgler penetrating the physical security after say somebody else did the org infil or bought/finessed the info off someone.
It opens up hail mary moments which, while one-in-a-million desperation moves, are also those things that people remember forever when that one exception comes up. And it also prevents reckless stockpiling for a zerg siege, which is my primary dislike for inhibitors in the first place. It's basically the setting equivalent of a super-weapon, possessing them should come with attendant vulnerabilities in my view.
That solution feels really gamey, if there's no real logic behind the mechanism I'm prone to reject it without much consideration.
Danke, that part just kind of appeared to me and clicked into place as I was writing it down.
I mean the idea that the inhibitor can be captured, shutting down the siege and transferring ownership is fine by me, it's better than it blowing up for no logical reason once some arbitrary time limit is reached. As far as preventing it being sealed up tight, activating each stage could require a player to get into the control module and switch the modes and if they don't do it within a defined time window the system faults, automatics kick in, and it doubles up the corrosive radiation for "technical reasons"- I really dislike the idea of arbitrary "blow it up" triggers, and, a 15min refresh cycle means you'd have to station crew on it from the time it anchors until the time the siege opens which could be a day or longer by the original concept, I'd reject that. And I think safezones ought to extend protection to civilian traffic, all it take is one careless mistake to create a crash and resulting debris field, which I think is the secondary function of the safezones anyways, to prevent newbies or trolls from wrecking
My understanding is that the faction tied to the inhibitor is the one that gets the ownership if it's captured. So a mercenary contract would also shift ownership to the contract holder when/if they cap it. As far as shell companies cheesing their way out of the aggression markers? I dunno, that's a question of how selling/transferring stations works, maybe the safezone has its next siege window activated after a gift/sale and the trade is announced on the public markets owned by both companies- sure, they've avoided the Sanction hit, but now everyone with eyes on their stations is going to know there's a free-for-all siege about to open up, which would be the detractor of a merc group capping the station and then transferring it outside of a contract system, so the hiring party might actually prefer a merc under contract and the Sanction hit over giving everyone a free go at the property.
Depends on how large the safezone is, I'm also making the prediction that some attackers might want to position thei inhibitor closer and possibly inside of a safezone for various reason we can't forsee atm.
I mean, it doesn't necessarily harm the gameplay and the really good stories happen because those 1-in-1000 chances came up on the dice because of a conflux of circumstance, not because we increased the odds to 1-in-50; I think it's more interesting when he espionage doesn't absolutely require the organisation be directly infiltrated, that's only one type of infil work, and I'd like to see the other types of covert skullduggery get a chance to take place including stuff like a commando raid or lone catburgler penetrating the physical security after say somebody else did the org infil or bought/finessed the info off someone.
It opens up hail mary moments which, while one-in-a-million desperation moves, are also those things that people remember forever when that one exception comes up. And it also prevents reckless stockpiling for a zerg siege, which is my primary dislike for inhibitors in the first place. It's basically the setting equivalent of a super-weapon, possessing them should come with attendant vulnerabilities in my view.
That solution feels really gamey, if there's no real logic behind the mechanism I'm prone to reject it without much consideration.
Danke, that part just kind of appeared to me and clicked into place as I was writing it down.
I mean the idea that the inhibitor can be captured, shutting down the siege and transferring ownership is fine by me, it's better than it blowing up for no logical reason once some arbitrary time limit is reached. As far as preventing it being sealed up tight, activating each stage could require a player to get into the control module and switch the modes and if they don't do it within a defined time window the system faults, automatics kick in, and it doubles up the corrosive radiation for "technical reasons"- I really dislike the idea of arbitrary "blow it up" triggers, and, a 15min refresh cycle means you'd have to station crew on it from the time it anchors until the time the siege opens which could be a day or longer by the original concept, I'd reject that. And I think safezones ought to extend protection to civilian traffic, all it take is one careless mistake to create a crash and resulting debris field, which I think is the secondary function of the safezones anyways, to prevent newbies or trolls from wrecking
@Burnside I thought about the need to visit inhibitor/core only during battle, not during the waiting period. I would never suggest forcing anyone to do boring things for days.
And it doesn't need to blow up right away. Maybe it just speeds/slows down the timer? Or increase/decrease corrosive aura strength? So soft punishment, but still preventing blocking access.
The logic is simple: it prevents stockpiling tons of inhibitors for sudden use.
Personally I have nothing against newbies or trolls wrecking active ships (those that they pilot, or just crash into). Careful navigating within tight station "streets" is part of the gameplay that is completely absent ATM.
We're talking about stations designed, built, owned, run and policed by players. So they can do that in a way to prevent/lessen the chance of accidental crash and active griefing.
Starting safe zone (so the place where noob protection is necessary) would still prevent any all forms of damage. Also because players don't have much control there to actively prevent it.
A space station is something that should be available to anyone.
Locking such huge feature out of everyone except zergs is counterproductive.
Of course station functionality should be proportional to the amount of work put into it. And proportional to effort required to capture it.
But small company should be able to have small station, and should be assured that nobody will ride it while they're asleep.
And it doesn't need to blow up right away. Maybe it just speeds/slows down the timer? Or increase/decrease corrosive aura strength? So soft punishment, but still preventing blocking access.
The logic is simple: it prevents stockpiling tons of inhibitors for sudden use.
Personally I have nothing against newbies or trolls wrecking active ships (those that they pilot, or just crash into). Careful navigating within tight station "streets" is part of the gameplay that is completely absent ATM.
We're talking about stations designed, built, owned, run and policed by players. So they can do that in a way to prevent/lessen the chance of accidental crash and active griefing.
Starting safe zone (so the place where noob protection is necessary) would still prevent any all forms of damage. Also because players don't have much control there to actively prevent it.
A space station is something that should be available to anyone.
Locking such huge feature out of everyone except zergs is counterproductive.
Of course station functionality should be proportional to the amount of work put into it. And proportional to effort required to capture it.
But small company should be able to have small station, and should be assured that nobody will ride it while they're asleep.