Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Would you support a change in the way bases work?
Poll ended at Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:33 pm
Yes, add base stasis generators and also a more restictive cap to the number of bases ownable. 24%  24%  [ 12 ]
No, leave it as-is. 76%  76%  [ 37 ]
Total votes : 49

Author Message
User avatar
Team: Admins
Rank: Councilor
Main: The Voomy One
Level: 1337

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:06 am
Posts: 4137
Post 
Quote:
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.


First of all, Im not talking about myself and since not just anyone is allowed on Oly that isnt really a option.
And what is to stop a team like Mercs to attack Oly and totally wiping them out? Joining a peaceful team doesnt work, Mercs took out what 2-3 peaceful teams last uni?

It's a fact that many players simply dont like PvP and since they want to make money from the game it needs to be adapted for both PvP and non-PvP, it's as simple as that.


Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:36 am
Profile
Site Admin / Dev Team
User avatar
Team: Admins
Rank: Director
Main: Jeff_L
Level: 1969

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:21 am
Posts: 3894
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Post 
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think the destroyed bases idea is perfect. Like someone else said above, it still allows attacking for the strategic purpose of taking away a galaxy, but mitigates the attacking for pure grief factor.

On the topic of optional PvP, I don't think an idea like that will ever be appropriate for SS. The is a huge difference between SS and games like WoW. In SS, a lot of focus is on owning and improving real estate. If there was no potential for PvP, then the universe would get cluttered by anyone and everyone laying down bases and drones on a first come, first served basis. Also, the idea of the emperor runs, which I think is very cool and a distinguishing feature of SS is inherently PvP.

_________________
For support, please create a support ticket here and I will get back to you as soon as possible. About Star Sonata.


Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:09 am
Profile WWW
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am
Posts: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Post 
JeffL wrote:
Also, the idea of the emperor runs, which I think is very cool and a distinguishing feature of SS is inherently PvP.


Need I remind you that emp runs havn't been in for what... 3 unis now? Or rather the rewards... and noone is going to attempt the task without rewards. Perhaps its time to put a little focus on that subject... I remember making a big post a couple months back that got alot of good feedback (and some notsogood). Perhaps I should revive it?


Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:32 am
Profile
Main: Comet Chaser
Level: 2441

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:30 pm
Posts: 15
Post 
I've had systems wiped out a few times now ( ;) ) - each and every time its been "punishment" for comments, rather than actually a game based reason. You know, like running for Emp or anything, which is the entire point of the game - which got to a stage of being so uncontested that... we know the rest. SS is, and has always been, structured so that griefing is possible. I don't actually mind that much, (besides how the mechanics used to be broken - a different issue though) however, I do know a lot of people who've simply left SS due to it. Since Tobal's time (and before), the play-style has been: uber people grief peaceful ones. Peaceful ones either stay very, very quiet & avoid ALL or figure "sod this, I'll play griefing style", or leave. Quite simply, its pointless if you put in your time (that you're paying for) when the difficulty factor of replacing losses is totally disproportionate. 4 weeks playing -> disappearing in 20 minutes "fun" PvP when you're offline isn't PvP.

Its also the major reason PvP isn't fun, unless you've 100% win chance. Which is basically the model in SS- total war, without contest, losers (who never had a chance) get removed from the game.

I like the destroyed base idea, a lot. It would mean losing systems / war would be more frequent / fun. If you lost $50mil (or whatever base cost is) + piracy chances / dropping, then it wouldn't be such a huge set-back.

Here's a couple of thoughts:

PvB only weapons. (Related to Cap ships, thus I asked about them before). Bases beefed = new class specifically suited as PvB? Might be an idea? PvB weapons would do a lot more DPS than PvP/E of course.
Torpedoes / juxes etc.

Destroyed bases. Perhaps model it on the ship loss system - set it so that (Tec level + player level) = time period where its only lootable by the player who lost it, then the base opens to be able to be "cappable" by anyone when the defense forces onboard have died of lack of oxygen etc (in reality, have it set docking = all with priveledges, allowing anyone at all to plunder it after X time). Then have a hard-coded disappearance. This would make PvPers happier, in that if the person's bases are in their conquered system, the person still has to face being marked to reach their base to loot it (and also, has to be able to transport the gear, with thatch / behe etc!). This will also reduce the problem of equipment retention - in a lot of cases, you simply won't be able to remove the Andaman Z due to lack of space.


Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Main: Bone 'Ed
Level: 1054

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:26 pm
Posts: 0
Location: Manchester, UK
Post 
A further base cap is a rubbish idea.
Base stasis isnt all that good either.

And in response to Comet, I've had bases killed by Fire Ball for no reason at all, and everyone knows what Mercs did to my old team for no reason also. Too much money and effort has to be poured into bases that can't hold up against attacks as well as they should.

The looting bases after a set time is a cool idea, but I have found that more enjoyment can be gotten from other games (WoW) where you have a choice to fight or not. In this game, the slightest "insult" and someone takes it out on your whole team. It's just not fun.

I do agree that PvP is an element of the game. But at the moment you lose too much due to build costs etc. if you are on the weaker side.


Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:51 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Eminence Front
Rank: Officer
Main: Xenophanes
Level: 7991

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:57 pm
Posts: 11
Post 
Fenderbass wrote:

I do agree that PvP is an element of the game. But at the moment you lose too much due to build costs etc. if you are on the weaker side.


The problem with SS is that the people PvPing really dont have much to loose. Okay, I loose a few GG, wow 200 mil setback. versus a base builder who has lot's of time/$ into it.

I think that the idea of bases being 'destroyed' would be good, if they had a timer (kinda like CC said). Because if I just took someone's gal, and I didn't want them to get their gear back, it would add a new element of 'guarding a newly taken gal' rather then just destroying it. I think that this would be a cool addition to pvb.

However:
1) I think the new shield caps are about 10x too strong then what they should be. Especially if this goes into effect.

2) I still think that pulses are a bit on the strong side. My semi auged mastery base with achilles pulse 2 shotted a MF base killni pax. So this should be addressed.

3) I think a way to combat number 2, would to either give MFs a few more base killing oriented augs. Or maybe have a sub skill for MFs, that would give bonuses for pve, pvp, and pvb. So you'd pick one, and maybe even have some new items associated with it. (like a few new weapons)

4) With the beef to Pulses, such high shield bank increase, and notification (combination of all of these) has made it almost impossible to kill a properly setup base, let a lone a system.

-kinda goin off of ^^^^^, Snipers are now being used as base killers, which is kinda going against what the MF class was designed for, pure damage.



With all that being said, I think the most of the current changes have definantly solved some problems. But all of them combined are starting to create a whole new one entirely....


Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Aidelon
Rank: Director
Main: goldstar-stations
Level: 6437

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:54 pm
Posts: 1174
Post 
i think taking more base slots away would be more harmfull then helpfull. as for the stasis generators...they could be usefull. i think though we should have a new class created just for PvB. a class that can use Capital ships and capital ship weps as a way to kill hardend defences. these would be large fellas an i suspect sorta slow...obviously fighting classes would probably kill these guys becouse of lack of speed and reliable pvp weapons. it would give another aspect of the game as well as a way to add the capital ships everyone has been waiting so long for. give them certain weapons they are allowed to equip and some they arnt. that way you can refine their strengths twards base killing and make pvp extreamly hard for these charicters. right now with the alert you can get a squad together to retaliate or push intruders out fairly quickly(not taking into account the massive universe) so these basekillers would be a solution to this and the stasis generators a way to offset their deadly virtues.


Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:01 am
Profile
Member
Team: The Happy Campers
Rank: Officer
Main: Enji
Level: 1638

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:50 pm
Posts: 22
Post 
I dont like the idea of allowing pple to plunder a not reclaimed base after some time, that would mean in a war that attackers will never let pple salvage stuff onboard, since all they have to do is to wait. No need to negociate.

If only the owner is allowed to take the gear however, the guy can estimate how much it is worth to pay the passage to his former base, and actually negociate.

The overall idea is to lower griefing, not to add more, and being able to get the inside of a base WITHOUT HAVING TO BOTHER WITH RAD WEAPONS would just make it too easy.

I think thare should be a timer, but not a retarded one: like someone loses a argo / ambro or higher base at 22h58 going to bed should be allowed to reclaim the content at 19h32 the following day when he comes bach from work.

When timer runs out, base goes boom. Or if REALLY it has to be plunderable, make it that 80% of what remains in the base is destroyed (the enrgybank meldown, destroying the stasis generator allowing the plunder, and also further destroying the ruin of the base, if you want to add some rollplay there :) )

Also, I wouldnt mind if to allow a base to go to destroyed state it was necessary to have a base stasis generator that should be cheaper than a slave one, because adding 256M to a anda base would not really fit with the goal of reducing the loss when a base goes boom. Base stasis generators should be cheap and 1time use imo...


Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:29 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.