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.

New Shield System Breaks PVP

Discussion in 'General' started by Bullet_Force, Sep 1, 2019.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. boromir Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    198
    Granted your opinion, and "don't look now" but most of Keen's premier quality videos are about PvP'ing in SE. They're definitely showcasing this aspect of the game, believe in it highly, and probably don't think of themselves or others in their game as 'stupid.' It appears they believe one of the major end goals of their sandbox is PvP, and with a grand role-play scenario-style end.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,066
    Everyone should know by now how I feel about shields (I don't think they belong in SE), and even though Safe Zones are not shields, they're used like shields. Therefore they're going to be... controversial.

    I was an avid Halo fan. Unlike some people, I like all the Halo games. My favorite, though, is Halo:Reach. Reach was a controversial game in the Halo series for a number of reasons, but the thing that seemed to cause the most consternation among hardcore PVP players was an Armor Ability called Armor Lock. This was an optional mechanic a player could equip his or herself with before the game started, and when activated the player would be invulnerable, and also immobile, for about five seconds. Five seconds.

    There was an uproar in the forums that lasts to this day. Mind you, halo characters have shields by default. It is essentially what distinguished Halo from Call of Duty. Without a power weapon you could not one-shot another player. Halo 3 introduced a new weapon, the Battle Rifle (or BR). A well-used tactic developed in Halo 3 that helped many players reach the highest ranks was to toss a special grenade the game has that will stick to your opponent before it explodes. That brings down or at least severely weakens the shield. A burst or two from the BR (the BR fires three rounds every time the trigger is pulled) and your opponent is dead. With practice, a player could throw the grenade and fire the weapon in such a cadence that the kill was a given. In fact, it became the Way to Win. Bungie (the developer) saw this as a problem. They were under contract to produce one more game for Microsoft before their departure. Instead of making Halo 4, they made Reach, which was a prequel to the series. The Armor Lock mechanic was a complete and total cockblock to the sticky grenade-BR burst easy kill. When a player engaged AL, not only did the grenade not hurt the player, it actually spit the grenade back at the attacker when the shield shut down after the five seconds. This rendered the muscle memory "good" players developed in Halo 3 null and void, thus making it the Most Hated Mechanic in Any Game Ever.

    Instead of learning to deal with it, as any real soldier would, players complained. The new developers came in and agreed with the loudest players and eventually nerfed AL into uselessness. I strongly opposed nerfing Armor Lock. I said players should learn how to deal with a player that was invulnerable, yet immobile, for five seconds. The "good" players refused to even play a game where their best offense was nullified. I contended that "good" players should adapt. I even quoted Sun Tzu. The "good" players responded with the "fact" that they shouldn't have to adapt. In fact, "adapt" became the Most Hated Word in the Halo Community.

    This isn't a story about shields, though. It's a story about "hardcore" PVP players, and change. This is about "hardcore" PVP players that see unattended bases as fair game, and other "hardcore" players that pervert the safe zone and use it as a shield. What's going to follow is post after post offering suggestions as to how to "balance" the shields safe zones to the way they see fit. Adapting to the way they are now is not an option. No sirree. Adapting means I'm the one that has to change. That's bullshit. Keen should change the game.

    So, Keen opened a can of worms, which caused the shit to hit the fan, some of which knocked down a hornet's nest, and I get to watch this play out all over again in another game I love. I'm older now, and I know exactly what to do.

    :munch:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    I *am* wondering though. I think we can all agree that Safe Zones are SE's version of shield technology. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is up to everyone's own personal opinion; in my case I'm happy for the potential screenshot creations that now can be done without mods but on the other hand for my playstyle they're nigh-useless as they require a stationary grid. My point is: the Captain talks about players misusing Safe Zones as Shields. But... they *are* Shields. Named so or not. What is wrong with using a Shield as a Shield?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,066
    That was my question, at the time, about Armor Lock. What's wrong with using a shield as a shield?

    However, my beef was having a shield in Space Engineers at all. Keen contends it is NOT a shield. They are correct. It is actually a "trait zone." A player can configure what does and does not happen within the boundary. Bullets don't bounce off of it. They just don't work within it. It doesn't quack like a duck, so to speak. The intent is primarily to prevent griefing. Gamers laugh at intentions. It does what a shield does so, dammit, I'm using it as a shield. That's where the problem lies. It doesn't help that they provide the customizable shimmering bubble so that it even looks like a shield.

    They are useless for my playstyle as well, since I don't build bases. Chilkoot Trail is my base. It, and my two Heavy Cargo ships Yukon and Koyukuk will have the store/contract blocks aboard, which means I can't use the shields Safe Zones. Therefore, I'll have to find some other method for keeping my Trading Posts safe.

    Wonder what I'll do. Anyone have any ideas?

    (btw Nice talking to you again. It's been a while :))
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    Hrm. That's a technicality, they have to negate damage *somehow* to do what they're supposed to do, protect trade zones. On the one hand i suppose it's a bit overpowered in the way it works, on the other hand SE's non-modded weapons tend to be rather low-tech so any self-respecting deflector shield technology WOULD just laugh at it. Then again if they introduced, say, a vanilla laser that could just alderaan a trade post... then they might as well have no Safe Zones at all. Unless they're willing to provide a one-size-fits-all one-block trade station that absolutely CAN'T be copied (which would, basically, make it useless for anything but a vanilla starting scenario) there's no way around it if they want to keep trade zones safe.
    I know i sound like a broken record but i really think the Safe Zones (not the generator, that block looks too awesome!) would benefit from being a World Option. (If they aren't already, i didn't check.)

    You call it a problem, i call it *delicious*. And that gif is basically why i don't think they're a huge deal for pvp: this scene can't be replicated. And i'm not talking about the engine's inability to handle a 1:1 scale Borg Cube - i tried more than once - but the Safe Zone's lack of mobility.

    [​IMG]

    Depends on how they work specifically. I don't actually know if the Generator needs to be anchored to an asteroid or if the grid just has to be a Station. If the former, well, basically you get the choice of a home base (if the field can even get big enough, i haven't looked at the Generator at all yet). If the latter i suppose you could invest in a smaller ship that basically acts as a Battery and that flies with you. I wouldn't recommend doing the old Ship/Station Grid Switchery with a ship like the Chilkoot Trail itself.

    Same :D I tend to pop in once in a while but i was busy with stationary therapy he last eight weeks.
     
  6. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    348
    Exactly well said boromir. Many of us SE players were sold on the idea that this game was a gather resources, build then fight kind of PVP survival game from watching the trailers and other marketing material. To a degree at a basic level it is, however many aspects of the last part of the game - the "fight" part have been ignored and or totally forgotten by Keen.

    This game has now been in development for about 5 years and in that time the developers have only added PVE content including his atrocious poorly thought out anti competitive, anti gameplay, anti PVP shield system. The fact that the game still only has the 2 basic weapons for ships that it started with is quite infuriating for many of us PVP players, we feel like Keen is ignoring us as if we don't exist when we clearly do and in significant numbers.
     
  7. Lord Grey Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    353
    Yea, and VW sold enviroment friendly cars...

    The Safe Zones are for trading posts so no one can just take by force what is in stock. Otherwise there would be no trading. Even the NPC-bases wouldn't exist. OK, there may be other ways to archieve that. But Keen decided to use a mechanism they already had in the game. The economic part is still at the beginning, there are a lot of improofments to be done yet, like a better description of ships you can buy, where your delivery goes in a hauling contract, which faction is hostile to which faction and many more.

    Yes, there is potential for "missuse" of the safe zone. But it will be costly. Zone Chips are expensive, last for an hour and are not so readily available. I had to use the whole evening yesterday and nearly all my money to get a heap of 90 chips together, visiting over 10 stations. A safe zone also applies it's restriction to the owner. Like no welding, building, grinding etc.

    I agree with Stardriver907, you have to adapt. It's no longer "get a fast kick by overrun someone's base". You need to really wear someone down with patience, perseverance and determination if you want to destroy him completely. Make an attack something that should be well considered. I like that. You need to plan your campains before you rush in, otherwise your opponent can escape.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  8. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,773
    *cough* It isn't a shield. *cough*

    Barrier is a better term.

    Just my opinion, not saying others are wrong.

    :D
     
  9. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,508
    You could always set up a trade federation blockade of the safe zone base but then you risk antagonizing the Jedi.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. ObjectZero Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    361
    Okay wait so the "safe zone" stop damage and changes to block but does not stop people right? What to stop people from walking in and gathering intel' on a bases layout ((besides doors))? I mean it's not like they can kill you and if the safe zone is up they're already expecting company. Couldn't someone just park a bomb with a timer on a base?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  11. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
     
  12. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,225

    I smell masterfully crafted engineer deathrun trapped bases.
    smells like success, burned space suit and vacuum of spac-.......
     
  13. Bullet_Force Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    348
    No it stops everything, you can't enter it in a suit either.
     
  14. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. boromir Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    198
    And this is the elegance of SE, the formulative nature of PvP in SE that Keen is evolving here. It's epic from a different perspective, it lends itself easily to creating your own story, a saga of the rise of your realm and the demise of another. But yet it also delivers a sandbox for entirely different purposes, a six year old, if the case may be.

    If you just want to hammer a base down to a small stump, then as has already been said in this thread, this is not the game you're looking for. Play StarCraft or many others that offer offline raids or base rushes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. ObjectZero Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    361
    Do sensors pick up objects inside a safe zone?
     
  17. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,797
    I think players on servers prefer the ability to trade than to smash-n-grab everything that's not nailed down. Players using the shielding have to spend resources for them to work. While they are busy sinking resources into shielding, you could spend yours elsewhere. Maybe you could just lay siege to their protected base... oh wait... they might smash n grab your stuff while you're offline... so unfair... so unfair!

    If you prefer a smash and grab server then go find one or better yet pay the money to set one up yourself and invite other smash-n-grabbers to play.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Lord Grey Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    353
    A safe zone Needs to be configured correctly. You can set white or blacklists of Players, factions and more, if they can enter or not. Doors can only be operated by the settings of the owner. So no spying, but you can reach the trade and contract terminals.
     
  19. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,478
    ...which, of course, won't work if you're blacklisted.
     
  20. ObjectZero Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    361
    Can you shoot out of a safe zone?
     
  21. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,478
    Nah, from what I've found you can't do any welding, grinding, drilling, and/or shooting. Heck, I wasn't even able to fart or take a dump!
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  22. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    How would you ever lock down 1 cubic km of invulnerable space in vanilla? The enemy can shoot out with turrets with impunity--and they can jump directly out of the zone. Even if you have a massive resource advantage and set up your own safe zone a minimum distance away, I don't think it is possible. If you are fighting a two-person faction, they could simply turn their turrets on whenever they needed to return to the zone, deterring any ships from one side of their base, then jump within 1 km on that side, and be back inside the zone within 5 seconds of jumping by flying at 100 m/s.

    Thus, a ship could just supply uranium and zone chips indefinitely unless you are able to block all six sides of their base with your own safe zones. Also, zone chips are not difficult to acquire. It took me about 4 hours to get over 30 days worth.

    As someone else said, it is also trivial to flick your safe zone station into a ship and jump away. That 10 second window is not enough time for the sieging faction to meaningfully interfere.
    Safe zones do far, far more than offline protection, and this thread is about what happens when the safe zone owner is online.
    See my above response. I have played almost exclusively PvP since multiplayer was implemented in 2014, and I agree with the guy you are dissing. Seriously, please explain how you would counter a safe zone in vanilla.
    Why in the world are you even commenting on a thread about PvP balancing if you don't want to PvP?

    I agree with the thrust of the OP, but I also agree that unmanned stations and sitting ducks in general were too vulnerable in Space Engineers without safe zones. The consequence of this, historically, was that you had to run or attack as soon as you saw a stranger online--because if they chose to attack, they could easily ruin your day.

    Keen's safe zone is not a bad start at addressing this issue, but Keen overcompensated. It needs a counter. Obviously I, and probably most veteran players, will play a modded server that addresses these issues, but for the sake of the franchise I do hope Keen realizes that the safe zone is currently too powerful. Disabling jump drives, having some kind of vulnerability like to a hacking block, or perhaps just being far more expensive could work.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,066
    Not even thinking about it. It consists of too many grids. CPU wouldn't handle it. Too much paperwork ;)

    This was the argument against Armor Lock in my Halo analogy. People said there was "no counter" for five seconds of invulnerability. My response then is my response now: patience, and thought. If you have only done a thing one way, and something happens to make that way impossible, what do you do?

    The PVE stuff is, frankly, more essential. They give the game more life. More weapons would just be variations of the three we already have: guns, rockets and missiles (ok, the SE missiles are not really missiles, but just another kind of rocket). Don't forget warheads.

    I am anticipating that the next Major Update will be all about weapons and warfare. The current weapons get a makeover, something will be added, and it's guaranteed whatever the DLC is it will be bought by 100% of the player base because no one will want to be left behind even if the DLC is just a cosmetic variation of a standard block. Most people build military stuff.

    We do need grenades, though. That's a mechanic Modders should have access to.

    I think this gif illustrates my point about shields in SE. I agree that it is visually appealing. After all, Star Trek is the franchise that sold us on shields to begin with. They made us believe in them without ever explaining how they work. This is not, however, a scene shot in 2077, even in the Star Trek Universe.

    Now, in the Star Trek universe, one or two blasts from that energy beam would destroy an unshielded ship. In a Star Trek game, that unshielded ship would disintegrate. That's how it works. SE does not have energy weapons, and the only reason it would, would be to counter shields. The weapons SE does provide are kinetic. That goes for player-made weapons as well. If you re-created this scene somehow in vanilla SE, the lasers would have to be cannons of some type. A hit would put a hole in your ship, but you probably could still fight. Your ship could, in fact, take a lot more than one or two blasts. Even without a nanite mod, you could conceivably repair a ship during battle (we are, after all, Space Engineers :)), so the actual utility of a shield in SE, for any reason other that it looks cool, is not enough to make it vanilla.

    If it's a mod, then you are playing a modded game and therefore, all bets are off. Anything is allowed. Shields, lasers, unicorns, popcorn machines... That is the trade-off as I see it. If you play vanilla, you play Marek Rosa's vision. If that doesn't work for you then you mod the game and make it yours. (You understand, Commander, that I don't mean you, specifically ;))

    Amanda Tapping should have shields. It's a Star Trek ship, not a Space Engineers ship. The Safe Zone is the wrong shape anyways though, isn't it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. RkyMtnDude Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    136
    The thing that perplexes me here is that when someone refers to a siege they appear to be talking about same day gratification. That's a raid or a razing.
    Most real war blockades and sieges lasted at minimum, days, if not years at times.
    You lay siege to a real long term threat and often feel some of the pain of attrition. These are based
    Bases are meant to endure.
    Now.. ask yourself. What is more gratifying, a long siege that you win with patrol drones, etc, to help you or rolling in and within seconds and ruining someone's whole day, week, or months worth of work and calling it PVP?
    Personally, I like the long game.
    When I have a need to fill a.simple pvp itch... I play a real pvp game.. not a survival sandbox building game.
    No blame guilt or what have you. We all have different playing styles.
    Personally, I play on pvp servers and rarely have encounters by design. I would in fact love to flip the switch "ON" on someone who thought they were going to ruin me and my day by taking out my base.
    Pvp my ships all you want! Leave bases alone is my game style. Let em live and learn another day. But that's just me. I don't get a real kick out of destroying others stuff but a rando ship to ship skirmish encounter is always welcome.
    Bottom line opinion. If you can take the time. Dont do the crime! Lol
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,478
    I'll add my "second" to this opinion!
     
  26. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    Technically yes but as far as vanilla features go that's already more than i thought i'd get so i'm pretty okay with that for the time being. I'm more worried about size, i haven't checked the maximum field size yet.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. doncdxx Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    411
    I have before, but I find that PvP in survival games it's usually not that fun. From my experience it's 70% offline base raiding (or spawnship ramming), 25% woefully unbalanced, and 5% decent fights. With the firepower potential in SE, the woefully unbalanced part is even more common than other games I've played.

    I've been on both sides of those unbalanced fights and it's not really fun either way. Either they overpower you and there's nothing you can do, or you overpower them and it's over without a gratifying struggle. If you enjoy victory without that gratifying struggle, then you're probably just a greifer.

    The safe zone seems fair because it gives a security to rebuild when they lose their ships in a fight. It means one bad day doesn't mean they've been completely reset back to zero. To wipe out days or weeks of building up on server in minutes isn't PvP, it's griefing. If you really want to siege their base, leave a bunch of turrets outside of their safe zone. Try to keep them from getting out to replenish their zone chips. It's a douche move, but it's entirely possible.

    Personally, I've got my hopes on that structured PvP mode Marek mentioned in a stream a while back. Fair fights with balanced ships and without the element of surprise means that everyone is at their best potential and skill actually matters. If and when that gets added, I'll be a PvP regular.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    We are not talking about 5 seconds of invulnerability that comes at a trade-off to other abilities you could be using instead; this is about indefinite invulnerability, with no counter and minimal cost to boot. As I said above, my base right now has 30 days of zone chips in it, from 4 hours of effort. If you were to show up outside in vanilla (I play a server with jump inhibitors), I could convert to ship and leave. Even if you are online, you are probably having to sit and wait outside of turret range (because I could freely shoot you from my safe zone otherwise)--so I can convert to ship and hit the thrusters while I jump to prevent any damage. Or if I want to waste your effort, I can jump a separate grid away from inside my own safe zone, retrieve more zone chips, uranium, and maybe some warheads to throw at you, and keep waiting.
    Sure, but you're arguing about something barely anybody disagrees with. I agree that bases were too vulnerable before and fell too fast. But now we can't kill bases at all. That's not a long game; it's not even a game in the first place. It's taking bases off the table. There needs to be a higher cost or a harder counter. (Or more limits on what can happen inside--maybe they could be altered to not allow building/welding/grinding/refining/jumping.)
    Nobody in this thread has made a convincing argument that it is possible in the slightest to stop a person in a safe zone from getting away. The enemy would just need a jump drive. I'd love to be proven wrong.

    As far as I can tell, even if the safe zone player doesn't just run, the only way you can prevent them from getting more chips into the zone would be to set up your own safe zones on all sides of the enemy base. Otherwise, from a safe zone, the player can just jump out to gather resources and charge back in through an unblockaded side. And if you plan to stop them from returning by leaving turrets (or drones, traps, walls, or anything) outside, your devices will have to cover a huge area--since the max zone size is 1 cubic kilometer, you'll need enough turrets to form a separate blockade on all six sides. Not to mention that they need to be 800 meters from the safe zone wall, otherwise the devices can be sniped from inside the zone with impunity--meaning you are tasked with patrolling something like 24 square kilometers.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Lord Grey Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    353
    I didn't tried it yet with turrets or fixed ship guns, but with the hand gun, firing inside a safe zone isn't possible if it's not turned on. Honestly, the safe zones are very complex and I ask myself, who has really tried out all the parameter settings?
     
  30. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,600
    Hm. Jump drives used to be far too inaccurate for that kind of maneuver, especially in relation to asteroids. As it used to be they might have been able to jump out but they wouldn't be able to jump back in. When did that change?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.