Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

PVP Talk

Discussion in 'General' started by Bullet_Force, Sep 8, 2019.

  1. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,987
    As a player with little interest in PvP, I believe it is important to engage in this discussion because PvP is an integral part of the game and I can't pretend it doesn't exist. PvP changes, just as PvE changes, affect the entire game. For everyone. For instance, some people use gatling guns and missile launchers to combat meteors. That's PvE stuff. Some people use gatling guns and missile launchers to attack other players. That's PvP stuff. Some people do both. That's how the game works. Whichever way you play, messing with gatling guns and missile launchers will get the attention of all players, regardless of which type of play they prefer.

    The safe zone has PvE elements (dealing with NPCs) and PvP elements (it's a shield), so all players have a stake in what happens with it. Altering the blocks characteristics in order to enhance PvP gameplay will not leave PvE gameplay unaffected. Altering it further in order to fix what got broken in PvE will screw PvP again, and so forth and so on. What is clear, at least to me, is that there wasn't a problem about what the safe zone does to PvP or PvE before there was a safe zone. The economy part of the update appears to have had no adverse affect on either.

    The United States thought atomic bombs were a great idea for stopping war, and it worked. Once. Now, your next door neighbor might have one and, if one goes off, they all go off. Not such a great idea now, is it? It's a bit ironic that the solution to the griefing caused by the anti-griefing solution is to disable the anti-griefing solution.

    Gotta love PvP.


    ...and PvE ;)
     
  2. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    374
    Okay dude I'm going to make this as simple as I can so you understand why there is an issue since you legitimately don't get it, or simply refuse to get it, as I'm not sure which at this point. First I will concede you were not the original person who said "everything needs a counter" based on your posts as they appear now. Given that you've cited balance several times in your posts I don't think it's an unsafe assumption you subscribe to that notion everything needs a counter in order to balance it out. It's hard to tell what you add and take out with each iteration for your comments anymore with as much editing as you do. To date here in "PVP talk" you have created a total of 12 posts with 8 of them being edited and only 3 remaining unedited. In the thred "New Shield System Breaks PVP", you have created a total of 15 posts with 9 of them being edited and only 6 of them remaining untouched. For "PVP talk" that means roughly 75% of your posts have been edited. In "New Shield System Breaks PVP" that's an edit rate of 60%. So with 75% of your posts edited in one discussion, and 60% of another, you'll have to forgive me if I find that suspicious and don't exactly trust everything to remain the same from one moment to the next. That's an extremely high edit rate for any non-moderator or staff member of a forum, and especially while this discussion has been in full force. I would hope you're not the kind of poster that edits things after the fact to make things appear different than what they actually are/were. I can count on one hand how many people I trust in this day and age, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that those edits were nothing nefarious for the moment. For ease of everyone I am marking quotes as spoilers as there will be alot of them, and folks can view them as they choose.


    The quotes above are just a few examples where you keep hammering the fact that you think the Jump Drive and safe zone need to have a counter. That much we can at least have a debate about. You say they're unbalanced and need counters, and I've maintained that they're fine where they are minus the exploity bits that are currently stuck with the safe zone. We both agreed that much needs to change, though not for the same reasons. It's already been explained to you why the safe zone exists, which is to prevent offline base raiding and bits of griefing that the community has said they do not want. We both agree it's not a perfect solution as the exploity bits need to go. The Jump drive is meant to be able to cover large distances in a timely manor, nothing more nothing less. Of course folks figured out they could hit the jump drive and get the heck out of dodge should trouble strike. This again is an intended thing. We will deal with the jump drives first.


    With these quotes in this second section we can see that you make complaints involving the jump drive and armoring around it, as well as it not being able to be destroyed in a timely manor, and how it has no counter. We also see bits of this in the first section. So we've established you believe the jump drive needs a counter of some type, alright fair enough, you're entitled to that opinion. When explaining what this counter would involve we get these bits below in section 3.


    So we see here that your idea to counter the jump drive is a block that completely shuts down the ability to use a jump drive. This block could also be hidden behind armor and not destroyed in a timely manor. In other words, the counter to the jump drive is a block that itself has no counter and could be hidden behind armor which prevents timely destruction, which were some of the same things you criticized the jump drive over. When asking you what the counter to the block would be, your solution was simply to blow it up. In other words the way to counter the jump drive was to utilize a different block that itself had no counter, and all of the same issues you decried the jump drive over, minus the 10 second time limit. Overall it would have simply shifted the problem of an uncounterable block to a different block, without actually solving the problem you wanted a solution for to start with. It was only after this was pointed out to you by myself and others, and after I suggested my scattering field idea that you seemed to realize this error and wanted to adjust it.


    Next we get to the above quotes in section 4 where you suggest the safe zone block is unbalanced and needs a counter. Okay again fair enough, you're entitled to that opinion. The safe zone was meant to prevent offline base raiding and other bits of griefing and was not intended to be a primarily pvp block or so on. it's not a perfect solution and we agree the exploity bits need to go.


    Here in section 5 above you start to outline how you would counter the safe zone. One part of it involves a window of minimum time the opposing faction must be offline in order for their safe zone to activate. In this instance instead of the 15 minute window suggested by Bullet_Force, you suggested a much smaller window of 5 minutes. The other part of your solution was the proposed hacker block. The problem with the first bit is you also claimed you don't want offline raiding and griefing to be a thing, (final quote section 5 above) but that's exactly what your 5 minute offline window would allow. That's 5 minutes of time where the opposing faction is unable to fight back as they are not online and you're not participating in pvp, but a glorified customized pve encounter. In 5 minutes one could completely obliterate an opposing faction's base, raid what you want of their stuff, and then be out the door while they come back to ruins. So instead of completely eliminating offline raiding, you've given a golden 5 minute opportunity, thus undermining one of the chief functions of the safe zone, and enabling the very thing you claim you don't want to happen. If you honestly think people won't abuse the every living daylights out of something like that, I have some beach front property in Kansas I can sell you for cheap.

    Second in regards to this second part of the solution which is the hacker block, this again defeats the purpose of the safe zone. By your descriptions included in section 5 above we see it would have an 8 hour charge up time or activation while it tries to do its thing. Since most folks have jobs and lives outside of the game, once someone logs out for the night, odds are they won't be on until evening time the next day. So if you start the hack right after they log off, you're pretty much guaranteed you will complete the first phase as I doubt anyone is going to log on first thing in the morning while getting ready for work or whatever it is they do. They sleep for 8 hours, work for 8 hours, thus giving you 16 hours potentially unopposed for the hacker block to do its thing. If we suppose they're not able to get on the next day at all due to real life obligations, then you've had a full 24 hours unopposed at this point. By this point they're going to sleep for the night meaning you will now have had 32 hours unopposed. By the time this person gets off work and is able to get on again, 40 hours have passed and by the time they log in, you've already raided their base and have been gone for 4 hours. That's scenario 1. If we assume our hypothetical person is able to log on at the 16 hour mark, per the lockdown you described, they're basically sitting there for 30 minutes twiddling their thumbs unable to enter or leave their own base with anything with their only hope being you don't log in. If you are logged in. then their zone is guaranteed to fall in either situation essentially giving you an automatic "I win" card. It thus makes the game a case of "fight me or lose everything" by forcing pvp on them. Depending on the server and the people, that will be a massive problem if this hacker block were to hit vanilla and the other person is not interested in pvp. Thus once again, negating the purpose of the safe zone all around. Even then you concede you think the numbers are too high for times involved.


    In section 6 above you claim you're not demanding anything and are just offering your opinions. If that's really the case, then you've got some serious explaining to do in regards to section 7 below.


    I will say once more I agree with removing bugs and exploits as they're not intended behavior and one of them is essentially outright cheating. As for everything else, your quotes from section 7 above clearly show you do to some extents want your standards of pvp applied to everyone else in the community. Otherwise why would you even suggest any of that if you didn't think it should be applied to everyone? You clearly thought your standards should be applied to Stardriver and his merchant fleet and that his use of jump drive should be restricted or altered based on your preferences. You also admitted you wanted Keen to change the game because of your perceived lack of strategies in space. Myself and others also gave you solutions to get around the safe zone and deal with jump drives without effecting everyone else, only to find out you already had a block on your server that could deal with jump drives. Malware also suggested simply disabling the safe zone or otherwise, but you also shot that down in favor of your hacking block which you say your server is testing. So once more you already had a solution. At that point I have to ask, if you already had these blocks, why have this discussion at all? The only conclusion I can draw is you do think your standards should be applied to everyone or you wouldn't have suggested them in some of the statements you made above. Offering an opinion is one thing, but essentially saying Stardriver's use of his jump drive should be restricted, his use of armor would change, or he shouldn't be able to get away as easily because YOU don't think it's as fun, is absolutely trying to force your standards on other people. Also who the heck are you to try to dictate what Keen should or shouldn't want? As I've said this whole time, you are not that important that you get to dictate to people like that nor does the incredibly small minority of players who share your same views. If folks want to play that way, they will seek it out. If you try to force it as you're doing, folks will simply quit playing outright instead of being forcibly pigeonholed. It happens with every game and SE would be no exception. I highly suspect neither of us want that.

    Finally we come back to this little number here as I wrap this post up with the final section of quotations which is section 8 and section 9.



    In section 8 above with the first quote you opened up by referring to my comments on Bullet_Force's as ad homenim when he already had brought his personal playstyle into the argument as to why he thinks things need to change. In quote 2 of that section you mistakenly assume I don't pay attention to what goes on in pvp simply because I have little to no interest in it any longer. Years and years ago, pvp is all I did in games, now not so much. I get enough of that "sup3r l33t hardcor3" scene to last a lifetime. Personally I don't care that you like pvp. Far as I'm concerned I could care less if you create a death star laser mod that actually can wipe out entire planets. At the end of the day I pay attention to pvp and proposals related to it because of the potential for it to effect the pve side of things, and incase I do actually decide to participate in that once in a blue moon pvp match. If I am going to participate in it or it can effect what I do when not participating in pvp, then I absolutely want to know what's going on with it or could potentially be going on. In quotes 3 and 4 of section 8 you flat out accuse me of knowing nothing about pvp, which prompted me to share my experiences with pvp in other games. Then we get to quote 5 in section 8 which is further clarified by everything in section 9. First in regards to quote 5, you claimed I never gave you a strategy and I showed where we clearly had. I further expanded on it be elaborating how at some point they will have to come back to that safe zone unless they somehow took their whole base with them. I also elaborate elsewhere at how you can catch people by surprise and so on. So yes you lied, oh I'm sorry, conveniently forgot, that yes you were indeed given a strategy. You clearly didn't like it, but you were given one.

    Finally we circle back to the bolded portion of that last quote in section 8. I also made it visible outside of the spoiler so folks can see it. You've got alot of nerve and big brass "family jewels" to accuse me of gaslighting while making uncalled for statements like that. If you're going to try to accuse me of gaslighting, then you're the guy who threw the match exploding the powderkeg. So next time you're going to accuse me of gaslighting, make sure your own house is in order first before you spout of uncalled for garbage like that bolded portion. You don't have to like me, or agree with me, and quite frankly I don't care if you like me or not, but there is ZERO defense for statements like that bolded portion. So to paraphrase a very famous saying, "let ye without gaslighting throw the first match." Anyways I have said my peace here and you're welcome to your opinions. If you can't understand the problem myself and others have/had after this, then idk how else to explain it to you. Good luck with your endeavors, and I do legitimately hope your mod(s) work out for you. Until next time.
     
  3. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    456
    As I already told you, there is a timestamp on the last edit for each post. So no, I don't have to forgive you, and, yes, you are still wrong.
     
  4. zachusaman Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    68
    Theres more pvp here than in the game...
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. RkyMtnDude Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    133
    I agree 100% with you on the "play the cards you've been dealt". I do not agree with the idea of Jump Drive inhibitors at all.
    Creating a counter and level playing field... LOL... Yep. That's what the Federation wanted with the Romulans and the Borg. lol
    Here's the real trick for people who don;t get it. Can't ever catch a gazelle, right? When you do you will have earned it. Otherwise if you reduce the ability for flight, you are just hunting on someone's private fenced-in deer farm. No real challenge.
    PVP now? Gear up, maybe use a little experience, and shred away. IF you cannot stop a Jump ship from getting away then you obviously did not have the fire power to take it out quickly nor a proper element of surprise. In other words, it's not just a Jump drive, it is tactical awareness, quick action, and simply better design that beat you out. It took more than a day to take out the Bismarck!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    456
    The jump drive only takes 10 seconds to launch. Render range even on Keen's servers is over 3 km. So even if we assume you (somehow) know exactly where your enemy is before they render, you are flying toward them at 100 m/s, and it takes them 10 seconds to load in your ship, you will still pop in and be detected* while 2 kilometers away. That means that you will still be out of weapons range when they jump, even if they sit and do nothing other than jump--and they will have 2 seconds to spare.

    Realistically, if the enemy ship is well armored and moving, I also don't think 10 seconds is enough time to take out a jump drive even if you get into weapons range for the whole 10 seconds.

    So this is my concern. I guess most people in this thread would like to err on the side of giving large ship pilots an easy way out of combat in space. But can we at least agree that the current jump drive is, in fact, an extremely easy way out of space combat? Or can someone spell out exactly how they think a jump drive in space can be reliably stopped?

    * Assuming you are fighting an online player who knows what they're doing. Obviously jump drives don't help people who are offline or away from their ship.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    654
    Bear in mind it is also 10 seconds from when the person gets into the chair and presses go. If they're sitting in the pilot seat then sure, and in that case they'll likely see you coming as well as they'd have 3rd person view.

    But say the person is inside a hanger doing some building, or flying around outside making repairs/upgrades, or fiddling about with production stuff in a terminal. In any of those cases it'll take a lot longer than 10 seconds for them to jump out of there even if they do see you which is unlikely if they're inside somewhere.

    And with the number of times i've flown 100m away from my ship and not been able to find it suggests that seeing an enemy coming is not a given even if they are visible from 3km away. Especially if they've camoflaged thier ship reasonably and not just painted it bright orange or something dumb like that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,987
    For the one millionth time, no. We cannot agree on the current jump drive being an extremely easy way out of space combat.

    Sure if, as @Dax23333 suggests, I am sitting in my cockpit and you come into my view distance and I see you and I know its you or at least someone that want to shoot me and I didn't just finish a jump and need to recharge, I could initiate a jump, just as easily as I could turn on my auto pilot and get up to max speed so that you never catch me, or just jam down the W key. Or... should there be a counter to using thrust to "get away" as well?

    We also cannot agree that jumping away is a bad thing in Space Engineers. Combat is a feature of SE. That does not mean every encounter must become a death match. If that were true, if the vast majority of SE players wanted jump drives nerfed, inhibited, removed, liquified, whatever, there has been plenty of time since their introduction for the case to be made, and Keen has shown that they are not married to any particular feature or function of a block if the majority of the players demand a change, so long as the change doesn't break the game. Since the jump drive appeared, SE players have demanded a lot. They have NOT demanded a drive inhibitor. That just might be an indication that most players like the idea of being able to get out of danger MORE than they like the idea of stopping the "other guy" from being able to get away.

    This thread has clearly shown that the vast majority simply does not see jumping away, easily or otherwise, is a problem that needs to be addressed. Annoying? Perhaps.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    456
    If I am in a ship I do not want to fight with, I don't need to know from which direction the enemy is approaching, I just need to know they are present. This will be immediately evident in several ways that experienced players are aware of. These two are common knowledge:
    1) There will be a "Streaming" message on my HUD,
    2) Another player's name will appear in the Comms menu.
    Getting up to max speed is much more difficult and not a guarantee of escape. I have no problem with the game balance in that regard. Here are a few reasons that doesn't bother me, in no particular order:
    1) Most combat ships have considerable acceleration and they will come into view already going the speed limit. Getting to max speed in 10 seconds requires acceleration equal to 10 m/s^2, i.e. a planet capable vessel. That's already a significant challenge to design--far harder than slapping on a jump drive.
    2) Even if you have enough thrust, you will need to know where your enemy is so you don't fly right into them.
    3) Thruster damage can be enabled, effectively nerfing thrusters and causing most designs to put them on the outside of the ships. (I also think grav drives should be eliminated, as discussed at the beginning.) This means your thrust is vulnerable and so hit-and-run tactics are much riskier.
    4) Small grids and astronauts can still overtake you in a conventional large grid, so you would still have reason to have some defenses. (Additionally, a large grid with a grav drive can overtake a large grid without a grav drive.)
    You will know it is me from the Comms menu. But yes, I am assuming you are sitting in your cockpit. If you find somebody with their pants down, then the jump drive won't necessarily be enough to save them. Ask yourself this, though: Do you really think a game has a decent PvP system if one side can only engage when the other side is willing, unprepared, inexperienced, or afk?
    I get that, I was focused on the state of the game part. I suspect you are right that jump inhibitors are not popular, and I don't have any new evidence to the contrary. I still think adding them, at least as an option, would dramatically improve PvP (which is why I suggested it).
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  10. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    Look jump drives are in the game players are free to exploit them in any situation, my point though was everything should have a counter in order to create good gameplay. That is also my problem wit
    Griefing? That words and its player made definition never makes any sense. What you really mean to say is you want a solution to stop PVP which you erroneously call "griefing". PVE players for some reason seem to love using that word along with "toxic players/community" and "trolls". If you lose a fight its because of "griefers", if you get ganged up on its a "toxic community". Rather amusing these little words.

    I get it though you PVErs think us PVP players are bad but thats ok, because we think you lot are cry babies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  11. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    @Bullet_Force Wow.

    PVE'ers do not equate griefers and pvp players. They do not consider pvp players bad.

    You can't even see, can you. You're blind to it.

    It's a pity.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  12. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,987
    So, let me introduce you to my flagship Chilkoot Trail: (It's the bottom one)
    [​IMG]
    One kilometer long and usually weighing in at ~200MT, and she goes from 0 to 100 m/s (or whatever the top speed may be) in thirteen seconds.

    OK. I play a modded game. I do so because Keen's standard versions of rocket engines break the immersion for me. If I were playing the standard version of the game, I wouldn't (probably couldn't) build a ship like this. I have noticed, though, that pure vanilla players tend to go a bit heavy on the thrust side of things because no matter how large the ship is, it must fly like a fighter. So no matter what kind of game you are playing, almost everyone recognizes the need to have a ship that can get up and go quickly. It's not so much a design challenge and more so a design imperative.
    Maybe.

    OK, I never play without thrust damage on because I consider that cheating (drill shake is also always on). I also never hide my engines. I think they're beautiful. This leaves my ships vulnerable to conventional tactics. Therefore you can rest assured I never use conventional tactics. Also, as I too often find myself pointing out, it's space. There are no conventional tactics. I take solace in the fact that most players think space combat works like it does in the movies.

    We agree about grav drives.

    Um, duh! (and we still agree about grav drives)

    That's the thing. Space Engineers has NO PvP "system". It is a sandbox game with PvP features. It absolutely, positively does NOT have a "decent" system by any stretch of the imagination. As a counter to that, if you will, you are allowed to modify the game and create a "decent" PvP system. That's Keen's "get out of jail free" card. They don't have to make a decent PvP system.

    Btw, it doesn't have a "decent" PvE system, either.

    It would. For you. Not for me. You could have the game you want by just using some mods. The evidence is clear that the vast majority prefers the status quo.

    We're not the ones crying because people can jump away. What's amusing is how defensive some people get when others use words like "griefer" and "toxic community" and start calling people names.

    I don't recall anyone claiming that all PvP players are bad. For that matter, I don't know that anyone said all griefers are PvP players. Or that any griefers are PvP players. I can't speak for everyone else, but in my mind a griefer is just a dick. Therefore, when I use the term I am not referring to their preferred playstyle, because it doesn't matter. I'm just substituting the word "griefer" for the word "dick". I also don't lump players into PvP and PvE. It's Space Engineers. Unless you specifically set up your session as one or the other using mods, you're playing both, therefore you are both. I use the term "hardcore PvP" to describe players that treat every game they play as a first person arena shooter. I have never claimed that all griefers are "hardcore PvPers".

    However, if you want to de-humanize half the player base by calling them names just so that it's easier for you to abuse them, you just go right ahead. We recognize that as proof that you have already lost the argument.

    Too bad. You were doing so well...
     
  13. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    900
    Example of PVP that happened to me last night, in official forums- as an example of how the developers are veering us more towards their vision of a game of building and exploration, rather than combat/thievery:

    My large ship (the Blue Ambassador shipyard purchase) was found depowered within the safe zone of an npc station on the moon. Great. I had my work cut out for me- how can I add fuel if i cannot open doors nor grind, nor place anything on it?

    So, after nearly an hour of full speed ramming my Gerbil miner (also shipyard bought) into it over and over, after many refuels at the station, I eventually got the large grid ship out of the zone, and got one of the reactors powered. whew.

    Immediately two suits opened fire with handguns on my ship, shooting out the safe zone generator, and turrets, then grinding their way inside. I had not even time to get to the control seat after powering it up. It was a literal ambush (fun for them maybe)

    Some respawn shootouts in the interior chambers, them seeming invulnerable by spamming medkit hotkeys to stand under constant close range rapidfire gunshots, they killed me and grinded my medbay and backup survival kit. They "won"

    As I died seeing them hack my control seat and try to liftoff, I said "Fine, look what it got you", and immediately deleted all my grids out from under them.

    "little do they know I have nearly a billion SC now... and a backup respawn by the shipyard. poof! all ships repurchased." I said in public chat

    And I flew off to refill the holds. They got nothing for their time and efforts but a little adrenaline. And cost me a few dozen aquisition contracts in credits and the amount of time to add my little adjustments to the ships. They cannot raid my SC balance, and cannot raid my ore deposit GPS marks. MY PCU was remaxed in short order again, and I wound up with and actually more efficient/productive mix of pcu expenditures as well when I was done. I was fine.

    I simply wasnt interested in nor prepared for pvp at the time, and thankfully, had recourse with the new Economy features. The attempted gankers didnt even hang around for round 2, they just caused ruination and logged. Maybe they were disgusted with the denial of the prize- or maybe the pointlessness of it all. -I certainly wasnt going to sit there with still maxed out pcu while they flew my pcu around.

    From my point of view- Screw what they think they deserve. These are the new mechanics given to us all.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    456
    It sounds like you agree with me that the options for fighting and avoiding a fight with just thrusters are far more interesting than jump drives. The point I am making is that jump drives just make that interesting dynamic obsolete. Nobody has a gameplay reason to experience that situation of coming up on a warship out of position--well-armed and ready for battle, but perhaps outgunned or just not wanting to fight today--and trying to take advantage. Instead, the warship will of course jump away; it was never in danger.

    I get that people want to err on the side of avoiding constant harassment by PvP players. But there is a way in which the game can be welcoming to new players, and allow people to keep their ore and everything safe while offline (like safe zones), but still be at significant risk when they choose to venture out with their ships. Keen is really close to such an open world design. (Indeed, they have it already on planets (barring safe zone abuse), but there's nothing important to gameplay on planets and this is supposed to be Space Engineers.)
    The premise of this thread, I thought, was to think of ways to create one. Economy is trying to create a PvE system. It can be turned off, if you want. I think a parallel system for PvP is needed--one where suggestions like mine can be turned on to morph the experience into a functional PvP system.
    Sure, but Keen wants to make a combat update, allegedly. From a business perspective, it should be fun in vanilla to PvP--maybe, like economy, it should be an optional game mode. But far more players will stick around if they see an open world game that has a vanilla option to have a good PvP system, rather than something they have to cobble together from mods. I think that it would be a wasted business opportunity for Keen not to try to fix PvP.

    The worst thing Keen could do, in my opinion, would to be to invest heavily in redesigning combat and balancing weapons, but leaving in jump drives as a one size-fits-all end to every space battle. Thus, whatever depth they may add to combat, most people won't ever try it because there won't be any vanilla drivers to use those combat features.
    I agree Bullet_Force's generalization was wrong, but he's not the only person flinging stones in these threads. E.g.
    As I have said, I am not "crying" that people jump away. I myself will jump away when I'm out of position. I make bare bones utility vessels with the jump drive as the only defense. Because that's how the game works right now, so I play the game I'm given. But it could be a much better game.
    This is actually exactly the problem I think we have. Those players want a PvP experience, but the only way to get it in vanilla is to find somebody who is totally unprepared and helpless. Because if you had been ready, maybe you would have chosen to fight. But more likely you would have just jumped away or moved back into the safe zone, and they would have even less fun. And let's remember how rare player encounters are in this game; for the PvP starved player, they don't want to risk you getting away. That's a recipe for making every PvP interaction asymmetric and thus not really rewarding--either they get you with your pants down, so you have no fun. Or you are ready, so you jump away, and they have no fun. There should be a middle ground (preferably one that penalizes or bars them for using silly tactics like respawn spam).

    Let's tell Keen how they can redirect those players into a vanilla experience that gets them trying to design combat ships, rather than Keen leaving in things like free respawn--one of the very things Bullet_Force wants to change!--that can be abused for silly spam tactics like you experienced, while Keen also penalizes players for going after big targets by ensuring that those big targets can avoid conflict at will with jump drives. My point with the jump drives is that the majority of (vanilla, space-based) PvP interactions will be negative so long as the blocks work this way. But that can easily be fixed, either with an inhibitor, nerfing, or both, while still giving noncombatants plenty of opportunity to avoid a battle to the death.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    Well its been my experience that a lot of PVE players do exactly just that. I've been called a "griefer" numerous times by the people I have been attacking and most of these folks are new players to the server that would join my server and build some silly giant workshop creation out in space. Then I would come along and push the delete key and suddenly I'm a "****** griefer". The reason I know they are PVE players is they will usually type something in chat along the lines of "is there a rule against griefing?" or "are you allowed to KOS?". For whatever reason a lot of PVE players seem to think they are entitled to join a PVP server and never get attacked.

    Jump drive is not an extremely easy way out of combat? Really? So you are saying its extremely hard to push a button and wait a few seconds to then be safe? Sorry but that's nonsense. It is currently far to easy to just skip combat if you have a jump drive. Unless your ship is some awful cosmetic junk from the workshop, then its more then likely to be properly designed and able to withstand a few seconds of punishment.

    No one here is arguing players shouldn't be to jump away if they have a jump drive, but rather that there needs to be proper counters so that if the other ship comes properly equipped they can counter your jump drive. Currently like with the broken safe zone there is no counter for ships with jump drives. You can't stop them jumping in a reasonable amount of time, you can't inhibit their jump and neither can you follow/track them if you had your own jump drive.
     
  16. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    Those players wanted a PvP experience. Calaban did not. That was the problem here, and is the general problem. I'm sure you don't mean that the people wanting PvP in this case should be allowed to have their fun with the cost of Calaban not having fun. This is a game and one not specifically geared towards PvP (nor PVE, actually, but that isn't really important now). So, if there is to be PvP, there needs to be an interaction beforehand, or a server setup that makes it clear that (a) this is a PvP server, don't play here unless you want PvP, and (b) mods that makes it so that you can't escape that easily or delete your ships remotely (which is just a server setting).

    If this was happening on a server that was supposed to be free-for-all PVP, then the server was simply misconfigured for the task.

    Actually, in my mind it all boils down to this: Respecting other players' wishes. This is, again, just a game. Something designed for entertainment. If people don't want PvP, they should not be forced into it, because they will not be having fun.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    Most PVP players that I know of only play on servers that are specifically designed for PVP, since the rest are typically infinite world size and a giant waste of time (and full of lag). On those servers PVP should be expected and yet there are still a lot of folks that join these servers and then have a big cry when they get roasted. Also there doesn't need to be any interaction, why would you alert the enemy that you are coming or ask them permission to kill them, that makes no sense.

    Warp in and delete, that's the best way to conduct business in my books.
     
  18. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    @Bullet_Force You're only further enforcing my point. The word "griefer" is not something you can use to identify a PVE player. I feel confident without even asking that the very PVP players that are on "your side" in both this and the other thread know very well what a griefer is, and it's very likely that they've used the word themselves, or have concerned themselves with anti-griefing.

    "a lot of"? There are very very many SE players. The players you've encountered doesn't even amount to a fraction of a fraction. There will always be people who "don't get it" and log on to PVP servers, probably not even realizing that the server is PVP, or what PVP in this context even means. Especially since the majority of PVP servers do have anti-griefing rules. Or, to follow what I gather is your point of view - feel free to correct me if I am wrong - there are very few actual PVP servers. So, the very fact that they logged on to your server means they didn't get the memo. Ergo, their reactions cannot be used as a grouping mechanism.
    --- Automerge ---
    While I am uncertain in this, I feel rather confident claiming that @Calaban was not playing on such a dedicated PVP server. If he was I would agree the fault was his, but I doubt it was.
     
  19. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    The ability to delete grids like that which other players have rightfully won is another flawed and poorly implemented feature added to the game and indeed another feature in which no consideration to PVP was given by the devs. You are also giving an example of why players might be quite entitled to offline raid you. Why make the effort of engaging in PVP with you if you are going to cheat them out of their hard won loot, better to just offline you instead right.
     
  20. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    It's a game setting. Remote block removal.
     
  21. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    It's a poorly implemented feature, that breaks gameplay.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    @Bullet_Force How does it break gameplay if you can switch it off?
     
  23. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    A lot of servers have it on and isn't it on by default?

    I imagine that all those Keen servers would have it on and they are meant to be the default way of playing which says to new players its much more lucrative to offline raid then to do PVP. That's a bad example to set.
     
  24. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    @Bullet_Force Because the default setup is designed to match how the majority plays, and it really doesn't matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise, but your kind of PVP is not it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    A philosopher on here once said:
    He makes a valid point wouldn't you say.
     
  26. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    Yes. He also said that Keen does have those statistics.

    I didn't set up the game config. Keen did.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    Well I've never seen these mystical Keen statistics where about's are they.

    From my own experience and from browsing the server list, and seeing the amount of PVP focused items on the workshop, it is clear that there is a significant PVP player base in this game.
     
  28. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,550
    Why would they want to spend any time making those statistics public? They don't even spend time making documentation for the game. The way they prioritise is evidence enough. They're a company, their goal is to make money. They go the direction where they think they can reach the most players. If they believed the most money was in the pure PVP segment, then this game would be a PVP game. Either that, or Keen themselves just plain don't like pure PVP. Me, I don't care. None of this affect me what so ever. Also, didn't you once hold a poll right here in these forums? Didn't go exactly the way you expected, did it?

    So how do I know they have statistics? Because the game contains data collection libraries, something that was kind of a "thing" not to long ago, because there was some bug or other preventing them from being switched off (dunno what happened with that). And because they've said so. I will grant you, I do not know exactly what these statistics contain, although I do know that they contain some kind of information about what people are doing - but they must be making their business decisions based on some data and I've had my own suggestions - and pull requests - rejected on the premise that it doesn't affect enough people to be worth the time (the programmable block).

    People enjoy making warships, battleships and fighters. That doesn't mean they actually take them to battle, and if they do it also doesn't mean they play PVP the way you do, seemingly without rules. We've already been through this subject, and I won't repeat myself.

    In general, for both these topics: Whether you and I believe or not is irrelevant, reality won't change. I always maintain awareness of the probability that I may be wrong. I do on this matter as well. However, as of now, objective data suggests I'm right.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,379
    That rather depends on your definition of 'significant'.
    Look at the data on number of active players in the game on Steam...

    [​IMG]

    ... and compare that with the numbers active on multiplayer servers with more than 2 current players. Currently and historically, around 10% or less of the active players are on multiplayer servers of any kind, and based on server names and known or inferred data on the common play styles on the servers, a little less than half of those are particularly PVP oriented... so your 'significant PVP player base' equates to around 400 people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  30. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    There are far more PVP players then just 400, I don't even know how you could reach such a ridiculously low number. At least 50% of the multiplayer servers are clearly PVP orientated and the rest are half PVE and half PVP.