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. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's not an unsafe assumption it's a duck until something proves otherwise. I'll humor you and tell you I'm 28, which may be young compared to some of you in here. Joking aside as for my experience with the game I'm coming up on 1500 hours put in. I picked up the game really late 2015 as in around november-december. I didn't join these forums until several months later in around April of 2016 as I didn't know there was a forum until that time. I may not have been here from the very start in 2013 as some of the others or perhaps yourself depending on when you picked up the game, but I'm not exactly new. I don't post in these forums as often as I do others. If that makes me "new" then so be it.

    With that stuff said, Malware did a pretty great job summing it up as far as to certain items being exploits. Simply because it took longer to fix them, or because they haven't yet been fixed, does not mean there is a stamp of approval on those exploits. If/when a fix comes and Keen did decide to allow it as they graciously did with supergridding, it doesn't change the fact that it was an exploit or that you still have to exploit in order to do it. Until they say otherwise with certain items like the grav drives, it is 100% an exploit that needs to be purged with fire. Okay maybe not that destructively but at least with a patch. Simply because a bug/exploit isn't fixed right away doesn't change that it's a bug/exploit. Otherwise good day to you sir and until next time.

    Arguments like you're posing are exactly why I'm calling shenanigans about why you really want some kind of activation window. The pvp folks, or rather certain pvp folks, say they have no interest in offline raiding or forcing their particular playstyle on people, yet that's exactly what this "solution" would do. Either stay and fight us or we're going to loot your base down to the last block. Anyone who's been around gaming long enough, be it tabletop or full on video games will be able to see right through this "solution" for what it really is. All it does is remove an ability for people to no longer be a target that have no interest in pvp. The more certain pvp folks push for this change, the more it convinces me it's fine the way it is now.

    I didn't go into super-detailed mode because it would have been a game of 20,000 questions and 10,000 qualifications with each question. What if he did this, and they did that? But then what if there was this, and he tried it this way instead of that? By the time I would have been done listing every possible scenario you could finish the book War and Peace 10 times over. I also never said it would be easy to blockade. What I did say is you wouldn't be able to do it using run and gun tactics like now. You will be very much so playing for the long game in this regard and will have to use more long term strategies like a game of Chess. In Chess if you're only thinking one move ahead instead of several, then you're going to have a bad day. Safe zones mean that folks can't just run and gun now and will have to plan their strategies accordingly. I would think folks would appreciate a bigger challenge but I guess not.

    All a respawn system would do is allow the very griefing they wanted to prevent to start with. "Oh you're halfway to this npc station. Aww did we just knock it down and cause it to appear on the other side of the planet, gee that's a shame." Then you get over there "aww so sad it got blown up again, man you just have terrible luck." If you honestly think there wouldn't be someone or several someones who would keep perpetually destroying the stations so they're always stuck in respawning then you're fooling yourself. I'm not opposed to a respawn system for stations that get destroyed in addition to what we have now, but to remove the safe zone completely without some safeguard like it, nah that's a no go in my book.

    Nice try but I am not and do not agree with you on the safe zone being unbalanced. If someone can shoot out of the safe zone and be completely invincible as you claim, then that's what I would call a bug or an exploit, which has nothing to do with balance at all since clearly that would never be intended to happen. If the zone is on and damage is prevented, there is no need for the turrets to actually fire as it just wastes ammo since nothing could be damaged anyways. Saying something is bugged or there is an exploit is NOT and I repeat is NOT the same as saying something is unbalanced. I agree with you on one part only, that turrets need to be inoperable while damage is prevented in the safe zone. What I 100% disagree with you on is WHY they need to be disabled. A bug/exploit =/= unbalanced as it was never intended to be that way to start with. Fortunately this bug/exploit has a simple fix.

    Once more a bug/exploit has nothing to do with balance and amounts to a cheat in this case. Bugs and exploits do not fall into the same category as balancing. Balancing implies something is intentionally set a certain way and is designed to function a certain way. Bugs and exploits by nature are unintended glitches and issues with code that produce undesired behavior. Exploits are similar in nature except the abuse of said functions is deliberately done where as a bug is unintentional. I happen to believe bugs/exploits should be fixed once found. Once again nice try, but still no cigar for you.

    Except it doesn't revolve around pvp save only in your mind. There is a huge difference between griefing and actual pvp. The safe zone is designed to prevent griefing and it does exactly that very well. It doesn't break pvp by any means, it simply means both sides have to change strategies as the regular ones won't work. The folks that want to get in and raid will have to find other ways of getting in, and the folks inside the zone will have to get creative if they want to sneak away to get additional resources. Assuming both sides enjoy pvp that's something I would think they would find fun, but to each their own I suppose. The fact that you're complaining it prevents the very griefing behavior it's designed to stop tells me the safe zone is working just fine and the only "problems" are in how you're going to figure out how to grief now that traditional strategies won't work.

    The thing is you already have a solution to the supposed problems with the safe zone, you just refuse to see it because it's not what you want. DISABLE THE SAFE ZONE BLOCK IN THE SETTINGS. Emphasis added for the folks in the back. Seriously though, turn the block off on the servers you guys control or ask admins if they would be willing to disable the block. You already have a solution available to you right now, you just choose not to acknowledge it. Aside from the ulterior motive of wanting to grief I don't see why that's such a difficult concept.

    What I said is I don't want FORCED PVP or griefing, which are very different things. I don't mind the concept of pvp, but if I'm going to participate in it, then it will be on my terms and at a time of my choosing. If folks want to pvp where anything goes including griefing, offline raiding, and so on, what they do on their own servers is their business. What I DO however mind is demanding how a block functions for me and everyone else change purely because of that small pvp minority. Unless it's done through modding there is no way to change how the block functions for one group without effecting the whole, which is part of my problem and why it's a no go for me. I love the idea of actual energy shields, but would never force them on folks who have no interest in them. If/when such shields were to ever release there would most definitely have to be a toggle switch for them.

    I'm cool with this. You guys can mod the block to your heart's content, and the rest of us can enjoy the block as is.

    What I want to know is why you think the block should change for everyone in the game based solely on your small minority's personal preferences. I won't presume to speak for everyone, but I'm willing to venture a guess it's not pvp folks hate, but that folks do not want your particular brand of "pvp". The safe zone was meant to prevent griefing and does very well at that. Most folks I've seen here do not like the idea of offline raiding for a number of reasons. The biggest reason being it denies the ability of folks to fight back reducing it to player vs base instead of true player vs player combat, thus making it a glorified pve encounter. So you're basically saying to folks, "hey we want to change this block that prevents you from being offline raided and prevents griefing to a form that allows both of those things to happen because we don't like how it's set now. Don't worry I don't like offline raiding though so I probably won't do it even though I believe it's a legitimate tactic." You may not intend for it to come off that way, but that's exactly how it comes off. It comes off as wanting to remove ways people can stop themselves from being a "target" and force them to play with you. So by your own logic, who are you to tell the rest of us we have to eat a change to a block just because you don't like it in its current form? As for my pvp experience, I was one of the reasons that blood death knights were nerfed in pvp and pve over on world of warcraft and one of the first successful blood death knight tanks on my server. I was one of several blood death knights who could flip entire battles to our favor back in that time because we took the time to learn the the class and what we were doing. I was also one of the top 20 in the world for the 2005 Battlefront 2 space battles, number 6 in the world for Close Combat First To Fight, one of the top 40 for Timesplitters Future Perfect, and one of a few who could actually make effective use of the Keldon in Star Trek Bridge Commander. I've seen more pvp matches than I care to recount. I am no stranger to the pvp scene though I don't cross runeblades or turbo lasers with folks as much as I used to. Personally I grew tired of that scene and so much of the toxicity that came with it as it sucked the fun out of it.

    As I pointed out above, as it sits now, the only way to get your version of "balance" short of modding, is to have Keen make a change to the block on their end, which would also effect everyone else in game and how the block behaves for them. You refuse to change your strategy for approaching how you attack a base with a safe zone and instead are digging in your heels demanding it be changed for everyone because YOU have decided YOU don't like it. You also refuse to acknowledge the solutions given to you which could bypass this entire discussion. Either mod the block or just turn it off then you don't have to worry about those issues you name. Instead of taking one of those solutions you continue to push for something that would effect the block for the entire game based solely on your own personal preferences. Sorry but you're not so important that you get to dictate that to the rest of us based solely on your personal subjective preferences.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,853
    @captainbladej52 you still did not get the point.
    But that is ok.
    At the end of the day, it is just a game, not real life.

    Have fun with the game, and enjoy it for all that it is.
     
  3. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    I strongly suggest you actually play the game before writing thousands of words about it. This is not a bug, it is a feature. It is a feature of dubious logic, but nobody accidentally coded a separate toggle for "allow shooting" and "allow damage."
    If that is your goal, then that explains why you do not mind that there is no way to blockade or counter a safe zone. What it does not explain is why you insist that there is one several times, and decided to ignore my explanation of why not.

    This has been very entertaining, but I am afraid it won't be productive to continue discussing the subject if you won't read what I write, are not familiar with the subject matter, and are insincere in your statements.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,212
    Here's the problem, as I see it.
    Too much hyperbole.

    It's not a completely broken system and it does not make PVP impossible, and the game was never "balanced."

    It does what it's supposed to do, so it's not broken. It allows things to happen that shouldn't, but those things shouldn't happen regardless of whether your game is PvP or PvE. Space Engineers is not a PvP game. It's not a PvE game. It's both at once. Anyone that just likes one or the other shouldn't be playing SE because you will be frustrated. If you don't believe me, read the entire thread.

    Is it the safe zone a shield? Well, it really does not matter what it's called because that is not the issue. The problem is that the block introduces an element of invulnerability into the game, and that is destabilizing. The invulnerability has turned out to be easy to obtain and even easier to abuse. The boilerplate solutions intended to "balance" the invulnerability: high initial cost, steep energy requirement and expensive hard to obtain exotic fuel (zone chips) don't really balance anything at all. Players will pay whatever price if they can get invulnerability. It's Space Engineers, so no price is too high as long as you can get your hands on a hand drill. It's just a matter of how much time you want to spend. Sure, it'll take a while if you are alone, but if you have friends it can be virtually instantaneous.

    If SE was a PvP game, the safe zone would undeniably be breaking it. But, it's not. If SE was a PvE game the safe zone wouldn't be necessary. But, it's not. What the save zone is, then, is a solution to a problem that Keen shouldn't be trying to solve. They're trying to deter griefing, and they can't. The safe zone is not the answer, because it IS destabilizing. If the safe zone works well enough to prevent griefing, the PvP game will be possible but way harder than most players would tolerate. If you nerf or "balance" safe zones in order to allow tolerable PvP play, the zones will suck as an anti-griefing measure.

    And for the love of Mike, safe zones should not even exist in the vanilla game. It's 2077. If you can't show me or even explain the tech now, it won't exist then. That sort of thing is ok if it solves a problem, like gravity generators and jump drives, but it doesn't. If anything, it creates more problems, and they will never be solved to anyone's satisfaction. Not ever. This would not be an issue if the game was in 2177, but it's not. The community needs to accept that and, frankly, so does some of Keen's staff. Can't have it both ways. Try coming up with a solution that fits the tech level you set the game in, or change the tech level. Griefing is a server admin/community problem, not a developer problem. Stop trying to solve it, Keen. You can't.

    The new shield system breaks the entire game, PvP, PvE, PDQ, any three letters in a row, if it breaks anything.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    I suggest you take your own advice there dude and read what I'm saying slowly. I've been in game since late 2015 and have nearly 1500 hours in this game. I would send you a screenshot to prove but by your statement you would probably accuse me of photoshopping it at this point. As to folks shooting out of the safe zone, I guarantee you that they never assumed it would be an issue, even then oops. It gets treated as an exploit and removed. In any other game that would be considered an exploit so I fail to see why it wouldn't be here. You're complaining and want the ability to shoot out of the bubble disabled while allow damage is on, I also want it gone. What we disagree on is the WHY.

    What I said was you're not going to be able to counter a safe zone using the regular run and gun methods folks use. Folks will have to play for the long game now instead of having their instant gratification. Simply because something is hard to counter does NOT mean it's broken or unbalanced. I know in this day and age folks don't like having to work for things, but now you do. At some point they will have to come out for resources and if they want to get by you, they will have to think outside the box. You will also have to think outside the box if you want to get them. I would think folks like yourself would appreciate the art of the chase against one's prey but I suppose that's a lost art in the age of instant gratification.

    In regards to my experience with pvp, as I've said elsewhere I am part of the reason blood death knights in World of Warcraft were nerfed for pvp and pve. Myself and several others were able to turn battles to our favor purely on our own, and successfully tank as blood death knights BEFORE blood was made the dedicated tank spec. There were videos at one point of myself and several of those other blood death knights fighting multiple people at once. I also was in the top 20 in the world for the 2005 Star Wars Battlefront 2 space battles, number 6 in the world for Close Combat First to Fight, and in the top 40 for Timesplitters Future Perfect. There is also a video of myself and a friend in a 2 vs 7 and winning 76 to 4 in Star Trek Online. I was also a high ranking officer in the rank 3rd pvp clan for Jedi Academy way back when, one of a select few that could actually effectively utilize the Keldon in Star Trek Bridge Commander, and a professional gaming ladder admin for Chromehounds for 2 years. In addition many of the maps I used to produce for Timesplitters Future Perfect, both pvp and pve, were EA recommended maps for weeks at a time. So if you really want to go there I've forgotten more about pvp than you will likely ever know. Now do you want to continue this little contest, or listen to what's actually being said here and WHY folks like myself are saying to hold the phone?

    Games like Space Engineers, World of Warcraft, Minecraft, ARK, and quite a few others are not exclusively pvp, nor are they exclusively pve. Both pvp and pve are possible and can happen at virtually any time. The safe zone was designed to prevent griefing and guarantee folks would be able to interact with the NPC trading stations. They didn't want "that one guy" to be able to run around and knock all the stations down to prevent everyone from being able to interact with them like a douchebag. Griefing and such is not restricted purely to pvp or pve. If you expect the game to cater solely to one side or the other, you will be disappointed. The devs must do what is best for the game as a whole and not just exclusively for small minority groups like the "sup3r l33t hardcor3". Most people wanted a way to protect their assets incase they had no interest in combat and wanted to purely be a trader, against griefing and offline raiding, and something to make the world seem more lively. The safe zone helped guarantee the economy update would be able to do all that. If Space Engineers was exclusively pvp, then yes you would have an argument and I would agree that it effects pvp too negatively, however it's not exclusively pvp thus nullifying that argument.

    You don't like the safe zone for whatever reason and think it should be changed, you're entitled to that opinion. The only "goal" i have here is making sure a small minority group doesn't get to dictate to everyone else based solely on their subjective whims. In order to change the safe zone now, it would effect everyone in game and not just the small minority wanting these "hardcore" changes. You have 2 solutions as of now that completely bypass this entire discussion, yet you stubbornly refuse to even consider them. You think the safe zone breaks pvp, then mod it to suit your tastes for you and your friends and like minded people. Or the simplest solution of turning the block off on your servers. If you turn the block off you don't have to worry about balancing the block or anything of the such as it won't be there for you to worry about. My issue is that in changing the block based purely on "hardcore pvp" reasons, it will effect everyone else in the game, and not just you. THAT is why I get pissed. I have zero tolerance for folks trying to push their subjective playstyles on everyone else. What you do on your servers is your business, but leave me and everyone else out of it. It's not about you or bullet_force specifically, but about what you're proposing having sweeping consequences for everyone in the game. Your ability to pvp is still there, you just have to either turn the block off, mod it, or use different tactics.
     
  6. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    No, they won't have to get by you. They can just jump out. Or throw blocks out until the blockade is broken. The premise of your whole argument seems to ignore the reality that you cannot realistically blockade a 1 kilometer cubic area, and even if you could you cannot stop jump drives.
    --- Automerge ---
    As I said, the API is not available. I do want to use a version of the block that has balancing changes. Regardless, I don't accept your premise that everyone wants an invincible shield block that can be thrown up at will with no way to defeat it. I think this block will demoralize the survival player base and hurt the game if it is not promptly fixed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,664
    To change the behavior, maybe no. To make it unusable or far less easy to keep alive, yes. I've already provided that information in an earlier post, after asking a dev for a solution. It is possible to either remove the safe area block in its entirety, or if you want to keep them for the trade stations, you can mod it so players can't get safe zone chips. Or you can change the pricing and/or availability of the safe zone chips to make them possible to have, but not to the level of arbitrarily enabling one. There are options.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    243
    Since the shield is mainly to protect offline raiding and the "exploits" hover around instantly activating the shield in sight of trouble (which I agree would be very annoying in pvp).
    How about just giving it a long start up time? Like say an hour.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,664
    @SirConnery Indeed. I mean, an hour may be a bit excessive, but yeah.
     
  10. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    The startup time is important and accessible, but in my view, the cost is fine so long as the benefits are reduced. (Max safe zone size is also a setting option, which helps too.) The problem is it doesn't seem that the "allow shooting" is accessible. Frankly, I think "allow building" should also be disabled since you can also throw player made weapons out of a safe zone bunker, but that is not accessible either.

    And the counter options are also limited. I want a "hacking" system that gives the target an opportunity to run away, but also puts them at actual risk. This cannot be done within the safe zone framework so it all has to be scripted from scratch.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  11. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    Now I see part of the problem which is how you're deploying your resources. If you're trying to block off a base on a planet, jump drives automatically will not work in a gravity well, so that takes that out of the equation. The blockade doesn't need to be this elaborate thing, it just needs to have key points covered and be able to intercept if/when they come out. It can be done with as few as 2 vehicles but the more the merrier. You place one vehicle on one side and one on the other with the station between you. Your ship doesn't have to be able to do lightspeed, but it should have decent acceleration. At some point when they come out you can intercept and blast them. The more ships you have the easier it will be to catch them. This is a strategy that was employed quite a few times in some of the games mentioned previously and even won quite a few games in Star Wars Battlefront. I realize SE is different but there are certain basic strategies that remain the same between alot of games.

    As far as the jumping out or jumping in goes, I know you're probably tired of hearing it, but I would consider that an exploit since you're basically jumping into/through a physical barrier. Since SE isn't using magic, in any other game, it would be considered using an exploit because they're bypassing a physical barrier, even if it's one of their own. So I agree folks shouldn't be able to jump into or out of a safe zone, where we will disagree once more it appears is the WHY.

    You don't need the API to make certain changes to it as Malware pointed out. You can already adjust activation times, and heck even resource requirements to build the thing. You can make it harder to get certain resources and make zone chips alot harder and/or more expensive to come by. You can even disable the block outright and prevent players from using it. You may not like the options you have, but you do in fact have options and aren't in as dire straights as you think. Personally I've thought they should have the the API exposed for modding from the get go. So in this instance we both agree yet again that the API should be exposed, just not entirely on the WHY.

    For them throwing blocks out, shooting out of the bubble, and jumping into/out of the bubble, I would consider those exploits based on experiences with other games. Keen may legitimately not have thought folks would do that sort of thing, or may not have thought it would be that bad. Whatever one chooses to believe as to how it came to be doesn't change the facts as they are. I'm acknowledging that I don't think those things should be possible, where we disagree is the reasoning as to why and some of the fixing.

    Personally I believe once the zone switches on you shouldn't be able to do so much crazy like now. Damage should be disabled, and since damage is disabled, turrets shouldn't be able to fire while they're inside the zone since it would just waste ammo anyways. Track items certainly, but not actually fire. The exception to that rule could be shooting down meteors if there's a setting that could allow meteors to potentially pass through the bubble. I have not tested the meteor/safe zone reaction which is why I mention this as the only possible exception. Folks should also be allowed to repair existing blocks as that's not adding anything new, but repairing already existing items. Folks shouldn't be able to jump into/out of the bubble as that's basically jumping through a physical barrier of sorts and they're not Danny Phantom. Far as spawning items in, the only way this should happen is if they've purchased a ship. Even then I would put a cooldown on ship spawning. Folks would also be able to refine ores, construct components with their assemblers and such as now, but since building would be restricted they wouldn't be able to construct huge blocks and fling them at you. The only thing they could fling at you would be any loose blocks or the raw ores/components. If they fling the ores/components, then you get free stuff. It wouldn't eliminate the problem completely, but it would reduce it to near nothing.

    As for what folks want, i never claimed folks wanted a full on invincibility they could cheese, even though some of them probably did. What I said was folks wanted something to prevent offline raiding and griefing, and the safe zone does exactly that. For me I rather enjoy the safe zone and having it as an option. The only thing I see that would be demoralizing would be to change the block in ways that have been mentioned previously as it would allow the very griefing and offline raiding folks have said they do not want. At that point there is no reason for the safe zone to exist. Since only the "hardcore" types want offline raiding to be a thing, and only trolls want griefing to be a thing, Keen went with the safe zone to prevent both of those things and listened to the majority. Finally with the above changes made, if folks want to do any kind of building, or shoot something, with meteors being the only possible exception, they will have to drop the bubble which would give you a full 30 seconds to fire everything you had. Using the changes I gave above, anything further would be on you guys to mod it to your heart's content.

    Yeah that's a no on this one. Way way too much potential for abuse with something like this.
     
  12. Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    657
    Ok, so on a planet it could potentially work. Space is a big no no because oops the person you were blockading just jumped 1000km - can't blockade that. You'd need to cover escape by land and air. I doubt they'd tunnel out but that would also be a possibility. I think you would need at least 4 land based forts with turrets on them to cover a circle like this in any meaningful way. If you want to intercept with an aircraft, then you'd need to be able to launch from any of said 4 bases immediatly and be on the tail of the escaping ship. If you had just two bases they could fly out in the gap and you'd never catch them. Need to be in front of them when starting persuit (so 4 bases again, at least) else they'd outrun you. So we currently have a pretty substantial operation - 4 heavily armed bases deployed around the target, with a number of drone fighters (they'd need to be drones else you couldn't start from the other side unless you have 4 guys manning this lot) stationed on each. This seems doable, although pretty steep on the recource cost. Would be cool as hell if you could drop the blockade platforms from orbit.

    Unfortunatly it becomes more difficult after that. That is because there is a big gaping hole in your defence - the sky. Now, you'd likely be able to intercept with a drone if they flew over the top. But if they decide to go vertical all the way to space nothing on the ground can help with that. Can't catch them from there because of the speed limit. As soon as they've started the burn they're off and up up and away. Soooo you'd also need a base in the sky to blockade that escape route. Positioning this in orbit above a planet would make it real far away, if you could have it hovering in the sky that'd be ideal... But that raises large amounts of energy use. I've not tried to suspend a large warship permenantly above the ground on a planet so idk how difficult this would be. I am guessing very. In space outside the well could maybe work... Would need to be able to charge in to intercept an escaping craft.

    Overall the recource cost of all this sounds pretty steep. Multiple armed bases with drone deployment, all requiring pretty much constant manpower to actually keep up the blockade. And they could tunnel out or underneath one of the fortifications and blow it to itty bitty bits with some warheads. It sounds like a lot of fun to try, but difficult and unlikely to be even vaguely worth the effort in doing so.

    Some of these costs could be mitigated by utilizing SPRT spawner antennas. Capture some (preferably suitable for operation on whatever planet this is all on) and then modify them to better arm the ships and then drop them on the planet as the corner bases. Boom! Instant AI drone attack squadron. Just don't let them spot you. Also, they'd rip your prey apart if the sheild ever goes down so make sure to have an off switch! Unfortunatly most of the pirate drones are not overly well armed. I don't think there is a spawnable one that has more than 3 gatling turrets. Has anyone used spawner antennas in PvP, or seen it used?
     
  13. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,846
    I thought about the shield system (for players not NPCs).

    My thoughts.
    A longer lag time for powering it on like a minute.
    If you switch it off, you lose all of the credits you dumped into it.
    When it's switched on, no firing out... period.
    Also, production blocks like assemblers and refineries will not function.
    Medbays, survival pods, etc. will not function either.
    O2/H2 generators will still work.

    This applies to all mobile grids parked in the safe zone.

    The shields are meant to be a safe-zone for trading. But instead they are being used as base shielding; which is far more than what was advertised on the tin. I'm sure they can make these changes optional with a check-box to satisfy server admins who want both trade and protection... but there are many who want the functionality of protected trade stations but also maintain some sort of PVP possibilities.

    Again, just my thoughts.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,212
    Dude, I miss that game!

    **sniff**
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    Gonna pull this out as the rest won't be necessary. You're overthinking it big time and missed the rest of what I was saying. First I never said the vehicles on planet had to be purely ground based. All I said was you need at least 2 vehicles, meaning more can be utilized, and they need to have decent acceleration. You can make some pretty energy efficient aircraft that can operate in space or in atmosphere that require next to nothing as far as energy costs to operate. I'm willing to bet as well that you will have at least one teammate willing to help you in your faction if you're playing with groups of like minded people. Secondly if folks go with the plans I gave above, folks won't be able to jump into the bubble or out of it. So unless the person is packing their entire base with them each time, in which case you have larger problems, they will have to return to that base at some point. At some point they will have to return to that base at which time you can intercept them. it won't be easy, but there are tactics that can work and do work.

    Going to strongly disagree with these 2 bits here. Simply restricting the ability to build inside the bubble while it's up removes the ability to fling super huge heavy blocks out of the bubble save for those that were already there. So they better pray their aim is on point or they're out of ammo. The only other things they could do is try to fling the parts or ores out, but if they do that, then they give their foes free stuff. In regards to flipping the zone off, the only thing I would say would be cool is losing the remaining time on that particular chip. So if the chip has 59:59 left on it and you cut power, that chip is gone and will require a replacement. Wanting to have it destroy the remaining chips or lose them is like wanting any excess uranium to be lost if someone cycles their reactor, it's bad game design.

    Tell me about it. I credit that game as being part of the reason I got into Space Engineers today. Really wish they had done a part 2 with it or at least made it so we could have offline versions of the Neroimus war. Used to play that game for hours on end. The only thing that royally sucked was when you thought you had the perfect hound setup and you were over the weight limit by one fraking pound. Alas it appears the best hope we have at this point is Keen putting in a set of mech legs and stuff for people to use, or Sega makes another one. We'll see as time goes on I suppose.
     
  16. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,212
    Perhaps a "disable safe zones" checkbox in advanced settings? It would only apply to player zones, not NPC zones.

    I propose this instead of making it more difficult to have a zone, as it won't matter what it takes to have a shield. Players will do what it takes.

    I was not aware zones came online instantly. I thought they needed to be charged. I'm also a bit confused why someone would turn one off. The more I hear about safe zones, the wackier they sound.
     
  17. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    They don't switch on instantly. There's a 30 second chargeup before the zone actually projects its field. From there folks must have power and chips to keep it going. Each chip is worth 1 hour of time provided of course there is enough power and so on. Despite what the hardcore pvp bunch may tell you, they absolutely do NOT turn on instantly, it takes time for them to boot up. I tested on in game right then. So if someone is seeing safe zones boot up instantly, then one of 2 things is going on. Either they weren't paying attention and the zone was already counting down before they noticed, or they're using a modded safe zone. The only way for it to come on instantly is if it is modded.
     
  18. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,664
    I'm suggesting to simply not make zone chips available for purchase at all. That wouldn't make it harder, it would make it impossible, which seems to match these guys' playstyle better. Would allow them to keep safe trade stations while preventing player use of the safe zone.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,846
    The shielding was supposed to make trade possible. But instead it's being used for other purposes. A trade station doesn't need any production capabilities. It doesn't need weaponry (if the shield is up). In its most basic form it's a shield generator, a cargo container, a connector, an adequate power supply, and any of the trade blocks to facilitate trade.

    If the shield protects all of those other things, then trade becomes the least significant aspect of using the shield generator... which defeats the purpose of the update entirely.

    There's going to be a group that loves it because they can have an invulnerable base. There's going to be a group that hates it because it nulls PVP. But all of this is because of the fringe benefits becoming more relative than the original purpose... trade.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  20. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    I don't truly know what Keen wanted, so I won't argue more on that. Exploits or not, weapons (including player made weapons) and jump drives in conjunction with safe zones currently cause a balance problem that should be addressed. If we agree on that, the next question is how should Keen address these problems?
    I also want something to prevent offline raiding and mitigate the danger to bases, because before safe zones they might as well have been defenseless because of how combat mechanics work. (This is why I don't just want to disable them entirely.)
    So I want a counter to safe zones as an option if safe zones remain in their current state. If we instead turn safe zones into something like a stasis field, that prevents offensive use (no jumping, no weapons, no building), then maybe a hard counter is not necessary.

    If we want to keep the kind of safe zones that act like fortresses, then there should be a way to counter that behavior. Maybe all the anti safe zone weapon needs to do is force off "enable building" and "enable shooting" and inhibit jump drives. If the anti safe zone only works as a station, then the disabling jump drive effect will have a limited range and ships can escape.

    I am a little concerned about just having jump drives disabled in the zone itself. Someone could still exit the zone and hit jump right there, requiring a "blockade" to be in range of the entire surface of the safe zone. That means you would need to have firepower to kill a ship in 10 seconds probably in at least 8 places, since a cubic zone can be 1 km x 1 km x 1 km in volume. (Alterbstively, you would have to set up 6 safe zones of your own totally flush with the target, which would probably be cost prohibitive and only feasible if the target is not online to interfere.) But even with all of that, the safe zone owner could also drop the zone, convert to ship, and jump their entire base away if they had enough armor to survive 10 seconds.

    I agree that the problem is not as pressing on a planet.
    They do not. Default is 30 seconds and that part can be modded.
    --- Automerge ---
    Personally, I don't see much point in obtaining space credits aside from getting zone credits. Power packs are handy, but far cheaper. So for me it seems that safe zones also encourage participating in the economy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  21. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,846
    They encourage participation in economy but are being used in ways that go far beyond trade.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,212
    I'll buy that ;)

    I take issue with the use of the word "becoming". This fringe benefit became relative the moment it was announced. "Economy, meh. Shield, hell yeah I want me one of those!"

    ... and that counter will need a counter, which will have to be countered...

    I wonder how much more attention the economy would be getting if there was no shield involved? I also wonder, given the military bent most SE players have, if there was anyone at Keen that didn't think safe zones would be used to make fortresses instead of shopping malls? A one kilometer diameter? My flagship is a kilometer long. It's easy for me to envision how much space that is, and it's a lot. That there is one big "store."
     
  23. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    I'm not going to pretend to fully understand them either. All I know is that in any other game, the features of the safe zone that allow for shooting out of the bubble while remaining invincible, jumping into and out of the bubble, flinging things out of the bubble, and stealing bases using the bubble, would all have long since been patched out as being exploits in any other game. Believe me I've seen some pretty nasty bugs and exploits in certain games that actually caused emergency down time of the servers. I can't say exactly what cause reasons but I think you get the idea.

    Then we're in agreement offline raiding is uncool and needs to be prevented. I'm glad we agree on this even if not for the same reasons. See below for a further response to this point and also your 3rd quotation.

    This is where the problem comes into play and something has got to give. Previous suggestions have been non-starters for me and apparently several others as the suggestions have impacts across the entire playerbase and not just the servers yourself and others play on. It would be similar to me demanding legit energy shields and weapons be added to the game while not wanting a toggle option included with them. It would essentially be me forcing people to play with the shields and energy weapons enabled and forcing my playstyle on them, which I would never want to do.

    If the safe zone block is to exist and do its job of preventing griefing and offline raiding, then a hard counter to it can't exist, or there is no point in having the block at all, especially if the counter is like some of the one's suggested here. If there is a 15 minute window before it activates and only once folks of that faction are all offline, then you've not stopped offline raiding and griefing. Instead you've done little more than create a golden opportunity for it and ensured people will just wait for that 15 minute window to pop up. If a health bar is added to it, then folks will just pound the bubble until it falls, thus again not stopping anything. Instead what needs to happen is the exploity mechanics need to be removed, or the ability to disable player safe zones needs to be implemented. Personally I would love to see both options get implemented.

    In regards to the jump drives the ability to jump into and out of a bubble needs to be restricted because it's basically trying to fly through a physical barrier at lightspeed. Since 2 solid objects can't pass through each other in that particular manor, and neither of them is a Super Solid, then it needs to be restricted for being exploity. If someone pops out of the bubble and hits the jump drive immediately on the other side of the bubble, that's 100% legitimate gameplay and doesn't need to be restricted. How you stop them from jumping to start with, or catch up to them is a player problem at that point, not a keen problem. Unless they're taking their whole base with them at once, they will have to return to that base they just left at some point, or otherwise roll over and let you have it.

    The best options still remain to disable the player safe zones, or mod them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,212
    Well, I can say. They're taking a break, and I don't blame them. I bet a lot of vacation plans were made weeks before the planned release. They worked hard on this. They playtested it for weeks. None of this stuff we're discussing now manifested itself during the playtests or days after release. I'm sure there are people still around that are aware and they are relaying that information to the people that will have to make the decisions. I don't think we're going to see that decision soon, either. It's looking like it's one of those "which leg should I cut off" kind of decisions. So, ease up. Cut them some slack. Give them a chance to catch their breath.

    Personally, I'm willing to give them another fifteen minutes.




    I know. I guess I'm just an old softy.
     
  25. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    I think the size was intended to give room for large ships to dock and be purchased without exceeding the zone, thus becoming vulnerable.
    I agree. I think that if any safe zone counter gets implemented, it probably needs to be a world option to disable that counter.

    I also think the current fortress mechanics of safe zones could remain or be put into a separate block, which could have it's own toggle in world settings. As I described above, a stasis-type zone that disables building, jumping, and weapons inside could be implemented with no counter, while the fortress-style zone (the current safe zone) would have a counter.
    No. The counter to safe zones should be limited so that it has inherent weaknesses. The server I play is designing a prototype counter to safe zones that would take 8 hours plus however long it takes for 10 people to be online, posts the GPS of itself to the entire server, has to be a station, and cannot be in its own safe zone. (There is a separate jump inhibitor block.) This setup is very conservative, but you get the point: the anti safe zone block can be made very hard to use.
    We may disagree on this point. There needs to be a way to inhibit jumping around the fortress-style safe zone. (That is not required for a stasis-style safe zone.) Otherwise, the target can:

    1) Jump their entire base away, or
    2) Clear a "runway" with guns or player made weapons that they fire from inside the zone, which will make it trivial to jump in and out.

    Keep in mind that the corner of a cubic zone is up to 866 m away from the safe zone. That means the target only has to jump 134 m away from safety to return to the zone, so long as they can deter their enemy from one of 8 corners. They can also plan their jump so that they arrive at max speed and enter the zone in just a couple seconds.
    I guess I should have played the public test. However, missiles have been broken for over 3 months and Keen has not fixed that either, so I am skeptical.
     
  26. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    What I'm saying is a hard counter, at least in the way you're thinking, can't exist if the safe zone is to do its job, otherwise there is no point to it existing. The best option is to simply remove the exploity bits so it can't be cheesed, thus nullifying the key complaints, and/or just letting folks turn off the player variant of one. I'm all for removing the ability to fire out of the zone, chuck stuff out and all that jazz, because those can indeed be exploited to hide behind an invulnerability, which in any other game would be an exploit. In addition I'm all for removing the ability to jump into the bubble because it's like trying to jump through a physical barrier or force field. Not going to be a good thing to do.

    At this point they could separate the ability to shoot out of the bubble, fling things out, and some of those functions into it's own block and give us a full on legitimate shield at this point. Heck they could even call it a proto force-field dome if they won't want to call it a full on shield.

    I have to ask, what's the point of safe zones existing and how are they to do their job if there is a hard counter?

    Just remove the ability to jump into and out of safe zones and this problem virtually takes care of itself. Either they sit in there with the exploity bits removed and can do nothing and are forced to log out, or they come out and you can make a run at them. Otherwise jump inhibitors themselves will need a counter or you've traded one uncounterable thing for another.
     
  27. Cyber Cheese Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    457
    The point would be to give you the target an opportunity to defend the station. The balance issue, as I see it, with stations absent safe zones is that obviously they can be attacked while the owner is offline, but even if the owner is online a station is a sitting duck to player made weapon attacks, suit spam, and any attacks in general. So the safe zone greatly mitigates all of those problems even if there is a way to take it down as I described. In those 8 hours the target can come out and destroy the hacker block or try to distract it while they evacuate.
    Both the jump inhibitor and hacking block could be destroyed or escaped. They would not be "uncounterable."
     
  28. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    So it amounts to "come out and fight me or lose your safe zone protections and potentially your everything." Even with that long of a charge up time of 8 hours for a hacking block, you're still doing nothing more than creating a golden opportunity for offline raiding. Folks will simply wait until their opposing faction has logged out for the night, then start the hack process. Most folks typically have a job or something they do, so assuming they sleep for 8 hours, and then work for 8 hours, that leaves them 8 hours of free time ideally to do what they want. If the hack is started as soon as the faction logs off, then by the time they're waking up in the morning someone has already started raiding their base. By the time the person gets off work and gets home, their base has long since been raided and the attackers gone. So basically that's a 16 hours window where the owners of said base can't do anything about it. It would be naive to expect someone wouldn't do that. So in this instance once again it would have defeated the purpose of even having the safe zone block to start with. Folks would just wait until everyone is off for the night and there you go. Free goods for the pirate picking. This would potentially mean someone from that faction would have to log on in time to stop it potentially while they're getting ready for work, which I find wholly 100% unreasonable.

    You've also not fully explained how folks will know they're getting hacked either and what the range of the block is. Are we talking something that you have to be danger close to the target, you can get them from half way across the solar system, or what are we talking about? For the person getting hacked, will they see some kind of something on their ui saying "attempted intrusion detected" or what? Furthermore how will they have any idea where to even begin looking for this block? I've also not seen anything about how you would prevent this hack block from being used against NPC safe zones and folks using a bunch of hack blocks to grief that either.

    All this hack block does is once again enable the very thing the safe zone block is supposed to prevent to start with, offline raiding and griefing, and we're right back to the point we started. How is the block supposed to do it's job if there is a hard counter to it that can simply drop the block's bubble when no one is around to stop it? Once again we're right back to what I said before, if the safe zone is to prevent griefing and offline raiding, a hard counter to the block can NOT exist. The only way you're going to achieve the kind of results you're wanting is to have an actual shield type block that can be hacked, blown to bits etc, disabling the player made safe zones outright, or modding them to your desired settings.

    Ah so "fly out of range or destroy it" meaning there there would be no counter, good to know. The problem you have with this is you just lamented not too previously about how folks can simply hide their jump drives behind a bunch of armor and there is no way to disable it within the 10 seconds. Now you're wanting to do the same thing and hide a potential jump inhibitor behind lots of armor that has no counter, such as an inhibitor scattering field, or such. So you lamented people for hiding jump drives behind a bunch of armor and how they can't be disabled before they can jump, yet want Keen to create a block that disables them for you, has no counter, and you can hide behind a bunch of armor like the folks you lamented. In what universe does that logic make sense, because it sure isn't this one.

    At the end of the day this is still a hard pass.
     
  29. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,212
    Alternatively, since Keen put the block in and started this mess, they can just take it out. Keen put the block in to stop griefing, and instead gave griefers a new tool.

    Griefing is not a problem Keen can solve. There is no technical solution to griefing. If there was we all would have seen it by now. Space Engineers is not the first online game. Smart, gifted and talented people make these games, yet none of them have solved this problem. Keen's solution is not new or innovative, but what griefers are doing with it certainly is. I was hoping that since Keen is now running their own servers they would see this by now.

    In addition, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that your average griefer, either by design or circumstances, has the entire 16 hours of free time available to them. They may, in fact, not have anything else to do. They have your fancy technical solutions right here.

    Meanwhile, there seems to be plenty of vanilla servers out there that have eliminated or severely reduced griefing without benefit of shields. How the heck did they do that, Keen? Why perpetuate the notion that a nice round shimmery translucent bubble that can stop anything is the only solution, in your game where such a thing wouldn't exist? If it's a 21st Century game, why can't players just be stuck with 21st Century solutions? If they use a mod, they're playing a modded game, in which case it could be any century they want. Your game, Keen, is 2077.
     
  30. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    402
    At this point they should just give folks the option to disable player made safe zones. Those that want them can still use them, those that don't won't have to. I'm not a fan of removing an entire block just to appease a very select few like the folks we've been debating in here. Especially when it could just be disabled or opened up to modding and folks adjust it to suit their tastes. I will grant you I don't think some of the features of the safe zone were the most thought out and Keen severely underestimated the determination of cheaters, griefers etc. The exploity parts of the safe zone are easy enough to correct and remove. As for shoving folks out of their base with the safe zone, they can also fix it so that you can't activate a safe zone within x distance of another faction's base/zone. No it's not perfect as there is no perfect system, but it can severely stamp it out.

    No griefing isn't up to Keen exclusively, but if there is something they can do to stop it or lessen it, then I think they owe their playerbase that much, otherwise they're enabling it. There is no exclusively technical solution to just as there is no exclusively non-technical solution, except for people to stop being douchebags, but we both know how unlikely that is to happen. With that said if a technical item is being used to grief, it can be altered or removed. If a technical item could prevent it then that item could and should be implemented. You're never going to have a 100% perfect system, but it doesn't mean we should never try it. I think they could have found a different way of going about it, but I don't fault them for using the option they saw available. It's not perfect as nothing is, but it's better than having nothing.

    I guarantee you they do as well. Someone bent on griefing will find a way if they're determined enough. Again simply because there is no perfect solution doesn't mean folks should never try.

    No one is saying the safe zone is the only solution, however it's the thing we have right now. We get it, you don't like anything that even remotely resembles a shield. If folks have other solutions to griefing then I would love to see them. Otherwise I would rather improve what we have.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.