Board Index | Search | Profile |
Page 3 of 4 |
[ 54 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Author | Message |
---|---|
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566 Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am Posts: 0 Location: Ottawa, Canada |
I personally hate the 'carebear' idea of optional pvp. There are too many games that cater to the person that just wants to compete agaisnt mindless drones. I like the option of just randomly attacking everyone you see. Personally, I think the biggest flaw in regards to pvp in SS, is that there is no benefit whatsoever for the attacker other than a couple mill creds from popping their pod. An optional pvp system might work, if there was some incentive for people to want to take part in that option pvp.
Seriously though... With optional pvp, everyone would just build a shittonne of argo bases. They can take out DTs without difficulty, and if you don't have to defend against anything remotely challenging, why bother building stronger bases? What advantage would there be? They cost more, take up more base slots, etc... The only thing that might affect it is wanting to equip higher tech extractors and such, but thats a situation that sees minimal actual time. |
Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:38 pm |
|
Member
Main: SerjicalStrike2
Level: 2683 Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 2:09 pm Posts: 848 |
You need to be on a team to build bases. When you build bases, other teams can declare war on you. Even if you opt out of the war, the other team can still attack you, so you would still need to build strong bases.
|
Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:44 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Main: Peter_The_Puller Level: 804 Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:00 pm Posts: 272 Location: The Internet |
I think it is useless for an attached base to go into stasis, it is Attached because it was meant to be on the planet. If it dies theres no use to it anymore.
_________________ |
Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:28 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Main: Nurokourri Level: 5049 Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:48 pm Posts: 1056 |
Stasising bases is a big "hell no". Not only would it not make sense, its not needed. If someone wants to ensure base survival, put up a few decent bases with only transference weapons and defensive augs. Base Stasis just ruins the fun left in PvP and team wars.
Reducing number of bases is already not an option. I am personally out of base slots, and I don't even have a colony or make money off these bases other than a shop - and almost all of those bases are adonis or argoanaut! Reducing base numbers even further will just promote huge teaming even more... _________________ Fucking loot... |
Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:39 pm |
|
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566 Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am Posts: 0 Location: Ottawa, Canada |
Nuromishi wrote: Stasising bases is a big "hell no". Not only would it not make sense, its not needed. If someone wants to ensure base survival, put up a few decent bases with only transference weapons and defensive augs. Base Stasis just ruins the fun left in PvP and team wars. Reducing number of bases is already not an option. I am personally out of base slots, and I don't even have a colony or make money off these bases other than a shop - and almost all of those bases are adonis or argoanaut! Reducing base numbers even further will just promote huge teaming even more... This whole base strength frenzy only happened because people can't understand that Mercs/Traders who have spent the past 6 months specifically gearing up as a base killing force are able to kill your half assed galaxies at an average of 20 minutes per base. I still don't see what was wrong with it. Its ridiculous how broken bases are... Pulse guns 1-3 shot pretty much everything, which means MFs can't kill bases anymore, only snipers who are outrangeing with big tracking can even attempt to kill a pulse gunned base... Then theres the ridiculously overpowered shield capacitors that are like 5-10x too powerful which makes it so you need to use a BT dealing 30k+ for like an hour and a half nonstop to kill a 4x dio andaman mastery base. |
Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:24 pm |
|
Moderator
Team:
Rank: Director Main: Calypso Level: 1800 Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:00 pm Posts: 757 Location: Scranton, PA, USA, Earth, Sol, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Universe, Multiverse |
IAmMe2 wrote: Seriously though... With optional pvp, everyone would just build a shittonne of argo bases. They can take out DTs without difficulty, and if you don't have to defend against anything remotely challenging, why bother building stronger bases? What advantage would there be? They cost more, take up more base slots, etc... The only thing that might affect it is wanting to equip higher tech extractors and such, but thats a situation that sees minimal actual time. I understand how much you enjoy popping other people's property, but that does drive all but the most hardcore players away, and right now, SS cannot survive as a Hardcore PvP game alone. Bottom line, it needs to cater to a multitude of players. Ideally, I see SS in the future as a game with PvP and optional PvP servers (much like WoW), to better help cater to hardcore and casual gamers alike without 'cramping anyone's style'. BUT until then, SS needs to deal with the PvP situation with the casual gamer in mind. In reading my previous post, remember that was only a brief rundown of my ideas on how the devs could fix the PvP problems. There was quite a bit left out, but ideally, the goal was to allow pirates to be pirates, yet at the same time, protect the players who would much rather sit back and grind on mobs, or build bases. Along with what I suggested earlier (which was just the bare bones of what I have suggested previously), there would be changes to keep the game interesting. First, Piracy has a 0.5% chance per level of unequipped items dropped off PvP kills, and a 5% Credit drop increase for spiriting a player. This means at level 20, you would pull 2x the cash from a player kill AND get a 10% chance of something good dropping off their ship... like their fuel, or their PWI, scanner, etc. Second, higher level aggressive roaming AI to make sure people keep bases in top condition. Their attack levels would be tuned to the min base level for each tech level base. Third, Unilateral Aggression AND Open War (and Emperor) would mean 0 PvP restriction (the 15% Income Reduction is a check to keep players from simply using it as a way around any PvP restriction without serious cause). Add into that open, no consequence PvP in Warp 3. Overall, all this would relax the PvP rules without leading to the senseless harassment of casual players (which is bound to happen with the current system). I know this is probably not to post to drop all this in, but until this game has PvP and PvE servers (which it drastically needs), doing a consensual PvP system is the only course of action to satisfy all the needs placed upon it by all the players. Calypso _________________ "My name isn't Slick. It's Zoidberg! John f***ing Zoidberg!" Some people want to love their god. Others want to "love" their god. Mmmmm.... adum..... << OMG It's my head in a jar!!! |
Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:39 pm |
|
Site Admin / Dev Team
Team:
Rank: Director Main: Jeff_L Level: 1969 Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:21 am Posts: 3894 Location: Santa Clara, CA |
Enji wrote: I thikn what would work would be that the stasised base can not be reactivated, the owner can come and dock there, take the gear, the cash, ..., so it would solve the problem of player losing a bas loses much more cash than the pirate losing (or not loosing) GG. After some time in stasis (long enough so that the gui can come and take the stuff, or negociate with new owner of the place) the base would be destroyed. The presence of stasised bases would not prevent others to own the place. This sounds really good to me. Instead of stasis and GG, when a base dies, it loses some percentage of the items on board and becomes a "destroyed base". A destroyed base can't fire and has no shields, and can't build or have any equipment other than extensions equipped, but the owner can come and get stuff off of it. It still counts as a base slot until the owner self-destructs it. Not only do you not lose everything, but destroying the galaxy would leave the glory of a bunch of destroyed bases behind. We can then set the drop rate of items from a base that's getting destroyed based on how harsh or nice we want to be, but somewhere around 50% sounds decent to me. _________________ For support, please create a support ticket here and I will get back to you as soon as possible. About Star Sonata. |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:42 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Councilor Main: The Voomy One Level: 1337 Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:06 am Posts: 4137 |
Yeah that sounds cool
|
Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:46 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Peon Main: Yurble Level: 1967 Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:06 am Posts: 171 Location: Somewere deep in your mind. |
just make sure those destroyed bases have a kickass graphic ^^
_________________ ~Lots of love and cookies and blue fur ~Yurbs |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:16 am |
|
Member
Main: Apotheosis
Level: 1360 Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:43 pm Posts: 8 |
Terrible idea. Especially the part about limited base slots. You've already limited it somewhat and we need bases for extracting commods, pumping, shops, storage, building... the list goes on. I like the idea about the 'destroyed base' but lets not turn Star Sonata into carebear world. I like wars, loosing bases, destroying bases. Ffs its only pixels on a screen at the end of the day, who cares if you lose ur base. Get over it and enjoy the fight.
_________________ ~Apotheosis It is not enough that I succeed. Others must fail. |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:18 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Councilor Main: The Voomy One Level: 1337 Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:06 am Posts: 4137 |
Quote: I like the idea about the 'destroyed base' but lets not turn Star Sonata into carebear world. I like wars, loosing bases, destroying bases. Ffs its only pixels on a screen at the end of the day, who cares if you lose ur base. Get over it and enjoy the fight. Calys idea will still allow you to attack whoever you want, just with a small penalty incase they dont want to fight back. Those who want PvP can chose to PvP, those who dont like it can try their best to avoid it. That is the best solution for any online game, they are trying to run a buisness here and want to attract as many players as possible, in other words both those who like PvP and those who doesnt like it. Not everyone can just get over it and enjoy the fight, a lot of players will quit the game after losing pretty much everything they own. |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:29 am |
|
Member
Main: Apotheosis
Level: 1360 Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:43 pm Posts: 8 |
The Voomy One wrote: Quote: I like the idea about the 'destroyed base' but lets not turn Star Sonata into carebear world. I like wars, loosing bases, destroying bases. Ffs its only pixels on a screen at the end of the day, who cares if you lose ur base. Get over it and enjoy the fight. Calys idea will still allow you to attack whoever you want, just with a small penalty incase they dont want to fight back. Those who want PvP can chose to PvP, those who dont like it can try their best to avoid it. That is the best solution for any online game, they are trying to run a buisness here and want to attract as many players as possible, in other words both those who like PvP and those who doesnt like it. Not everyone can just get over it and enjoy the fight, a lot of players will quit the game after losing pretty much everything they own. HAHA that made me laugh. But if u dont like the fight join a different team. Thats what the admins have said once before. If you like pvp join mercs for example and if u dont join Oly. _________________ ~Apotheosis It is not enough that I succeed. Others must fail. |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:40 am |
|
Member
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Enji Level: 1638 Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:50 pm Posts: 22 |
Apotheosis, thats simply not how it works and as a long time LC (carebears, sheeps, whatever depisable name you want to give us) I know it well. Peaceful teams ARE the best teams to be shot by people who love PVP, unless they have as much firepower as a PVP oriented team, but well.
Most of the so called PVP lovers just love laying mass destruction on easy targets. Why else did tobal loved so much killing us ? Or jawss ? OK u may think whatever you want about me and pple loke me, but I personnaly see SS as a way to spend time after work, and unlike students who can skip some classes, screw their homework, go late to bed and sleep in class (I know I did it in the past) I have a job and dont have tons of time to build kick ass drones kick ass bases and so on. An evening spent in PVP and then I have to go to bed while the battle still rages just leave me with the feeling of wasted time, and worries of what is going on while away. So the big question is, are guys like me allowed to play at all ? Are we among the targetted customers of the game ? ------------------------------------------------------------------- More on topic: The idea of "destroyed" bases sounds good to me because it allowes pple to kill bases and then take the galaxy, even ask some cash to allow the previous owners salvage something, whatever.... It has no impact on the overall strategical situation as the owned bases have no military value as they are powered down. If we take into account Jeff's idea (part of the base dropping, and maybe all cash) would mean some looting form the attackers, provided they have big assed frighters to scoop base gear like dampeners, ...) What I had in mind was mostly to prevent the "Minch" phenomenon: a handful of rogues attacking pple, with no risk for themselves other than a few GG, while the target can lose much more and have no real hability to fight back. |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:51 pm |
|
Main: Minch
Level: 2357 Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:05 am Posts: 33 Location: Wales , South Wales |
You want PvP and stuff and then yiour just making it like inpossible for bases to die if you put that theres no sence in people having warz
-Minch- |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:16 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Shukhov Yimlevsky Level: 4739 Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:15 pm Posts: 0 Location: r(t) = f(t)i + g(t)j + h(t)k |
mincher2k4 wrote: You want PvP and stuff and then yiour just making it like inpossible for bases to die if you put that theres no sence in people having warz -Minch- the point of a war SHOULD be to gain territory (galaxies), NOT to destroy the game for whomever you're fighting. The destroyed base system seems like it would work in that respect. As it is now PvP/PvB wars lead almost directly to most of the losing side quitting - not a good sign to the Admins. The destroyed base system still gives the impetus to build strong bases and well-defended galaxies without allowing for the utter annihilation of resources teams face when they get into a war with a stronger team. _________________ Shukhov Yimlevsky: you'll never forget the name, just how to spell it. |
Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:28 pm |
|
Page 3 of 4 |
[ 54 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |