Exodus Spam - Suicide - Base runs

[Bodega]

There's a big discussion happening on Darkstar at this moment. There is a good point being brought up about being able to use Exodus missiles against a command module, die, refresh, repeat.

Solutions:

1. More Armor on Command? Would that do anything?
2. Cargo fee when death against command bases? Lose money, but you could still get the missiles back.
3. Faster shield/armor regen? So after you die and have to restart by the time you get there you'd start all over again.
4. Lose missiles when death against PvE?
   [/list=1]

[Serayl]

It's a tough balance to properly strike.

More CMD armor is likely a good thing, although again if they're too tough to take down within a reasonable timeframe (which in itself must be defined), stations can, and likely would eventually clog up all of known space. Anything else defensively needs to be balanced against the ease of construction, lest the CMDs become too tough to destroy and other means are employed to handle them as necessary, such as dropping turrets on top of them.

Considering any tweaking of the actual defensive statistics of stations, turrets, shields and so forth, it is crucial that in this discussion we try to think about a few questions:

a) What constitutes a legitimate, 'good' attack?
b) What constitutes a well-defended, 'good' station? and
c) How much in-game effort should be required to build a station, as well effort required to destroy one, particularly in the case of solo attackers?

As far as losing missiles on death, there are only a handful of munitions that would be a real pain to lose currently: Disruptors, Disruptor Mines [both are overpriced, but anyways] and the more expensive pack items (Shield/Charge/Stealth). Excals, being a regenerative secondary, would need to be exempt from this. I'd support this with those aspects covered.

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Serayl]

[starschulz]

I will add in some of the things said:


- 1 Nerf exodus so it is no longer a one shot bombing run


- 2 increase command armor and increase repair rate of the command module, but add in the station detonator as a piece of equipment. requires you to be almost non-moving, but will annihilate a command after a fair delay time. [ 20 seconds? ] it cannot be activated in the command's zap range. this would mean that if there were weapons present, they would have the time to finish you before it activated. so a station attack plan would be to break open an angle where you could activate the detonator without being harmed. the better defended the station is, the more weapons you will have to destroy to be able to use the detonator.

It was also brought up that in any combat scenario you can suicide to reload your last save. that is fine, but not exactly in the case where someone is repeatedly reloading to bomb a station. if you stop him 10 times, but the 11th gets through, game over.


There are also some station building problems too. people are almost forced to use the current exodus missiles to be able to break stacked shield generators. while stacking them doesn't increase the shield, it DOES increase regeneration. enough shields would make anything near invulnerable to standard attacks.

since weapons are self powering, there is no strategy of taking out an undefended power supply to power down a bunch of weapons. if shields are connected to a command, they don't have to be powered either. you can stack shields on a command and make it invulnerable to all but an instant kill.


[Edited on 2-10-2016 by starschulz]

[Serayl]

There are also some station building problems too. people are almost forced to use the current exodus missiles to be able to break stacked shield generators. while stacking them doesn't increase the shield, it DOES increase regeneration. enough shields would make anything near invulnerable to standard attacks.

since weapons are self powering, there is no strategy of taking out an undefended power supply to power down a bunch of weapons. if shields are connected to a command, they don't have to be powered either. you can stack shields on a command and make it invulnerable to all but an instant kill.

Just to clarify a bit more for anyone who hasn't tried station assaults: when you're soloing a station, if you encounter two/three+ shields in close proximity (a stack/cluster), your particle weapons will be incapable of damaging the shield faster than it can regenerate by itself, even on 5W.

The only way to defeat a shielded module as this point is to drop at least two Exoduses on the offending shield face, breaking that face open and allowing your particles to damage the module directly. This can still be risky if turrets are nearby, as then you can't sit there and gnaw the module to death while the shield is open while being fired upon.

Therefore, you can destroy four modules at best under these conditions before you must retreat to reload. This is generally no big deal in charted systems (though high-tech systems don't stock Exoduses, because they're mean); however, in uncharted places, this quickly becomes a very serious problem. You're either limited to jumping back to reload (taking forever, a huge amount of fuel too), building a temporary CMD (needs metal, a build constructor, may not even stock Exoduses plus someone can blow it up), or you save/suicide/reload whenever you need more ammo.

Against stations with 20 or more shields (remember, they're only 25 metal a pop) in a small area, you're again forced to spend a lot of time reloading your missiles, making a traditional method of attack not viable time-wise, especially if someone is actively defending your target. This also doesn't factor in any turrets that may be blocking your access to a particular shield - you'll have to swat those with Exoduses too.

As a result, the only realistic option currently to deal with very big and/or distant stations is to dive-bomb the command module, dumping all eight Exoduses into one shield face, hopefully killing it.

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Serayl]

[CS-ACI-]

Hello,

As a result, the only realistic option currently to deal with very big and/or distant stations is to dive-bomb the command module, dumping all eight Exoduses into one shield face, hopefully killing it.

Nope, this is not realistic.

You have to take space stations down systematically.

The system is not designed for you to just destroy the command module, you need to take out every module.

You will need skill, planing and time.

Steve

[starschulz]

As soon as you take the command module down, the map doesn't display it any more, you cant dock, and any items you had in it are gone. Someone would have to go and rebuild it, but it wouldn't be the same. you can't always fit the command back in the right spot, either.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, CS-ACI-. are you saying that the current system of station destruction takes skill planning and time? because it doesn't.

There should be a balance between station building and destroying so there is neither too many or too few stations. currently it is too easy to destroy them compared to building them.


If i wanted to give an example, i could log onto a server with a fresh pilot, respec for 8 exodus, and go nuke every single station on the server. i would probably get banned, but the fact that it is possible just means that someone could do it.

[Serayl]

Hello,

As a result, the only realistic option currently to deal with very big and/or distant stations is to dive-bomb the command module, dumping all eight Exoduses into one shield face, hopefully killing it.

Nope, this is not realistic.

You have to take space stations down systematically.

The system is not designed for you to just destroy the command module, you need to take out every module.

You will need skill, planing and time.

Steve

I do not think you have tried this for yourself yet.

I have even seen some of your stations, and yes, I can dive-bomb them to death as easily as any other station I've run across, pre-fab or player-made. The only module that matters is the command, in terms of running contracts, reloading ammo, buying fuel, etc. Everything else is of secondary importance unless your goal is to raze the station entirely, which is a different matter in of itself. If your goal is simply to cause as much damage in as short a time as possible, killing the command module is by far the best way to go, especially if other players are actively trying to stop you. As Starschulz said, it doesn't matter how many times they kill you; if you get past them once and pop the CMD, you are a winner.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have flattened several stations in MP completely and utterly, including munching on turret farms (stations with nothing but shields & turrets, usually a lot [20-30+] of the latter in a small area of space). In those cases, yes you do need a bit of planning, revolving around the strategy of "which shield modules can I kill the easiest?", then gnawing at the newly-vulnerable shield modules until the whole thing can be fragged with particles only. You'll still be stuck having to use Exoduses to blow up those shields to create new avenues of attack, and thus you'll be still forced to reload after at most four modules.

Why go through all that work spending several hours picking the whole thing apart when you can:

a) just kill the command module in one pass with eight Exoduses, and
b) if you really, really want to destroy everything, save first, unload missiles, then kill yourself, reload and repeat.

I guarentee you could clear every pre-made station on a server in a couple hours tops doing this. The best part is, nobody can stop you until the server admin can come and ban you for gross abuse.

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Serayl]

[Vice]

What affect do you think supercharging a command module's shield defenses would have overall on such situations? That is, if a command module had a unique shield property unmatched by the other modules that made it virtually impossible to destroy until the shield defenses (the shield modules themselves) were destroyed before the command module could be brought down. If the command module had any shield energy from a nearby module, it would be extremely well protected overall. Having no shield module in range would be the one condition where it could be damaged directly.

[starschulz]

Shield modules would be sniped one by one using exodus suicide > reload bombing.

[ im not saying thats a bad idea, anything that stops instant sniping command modules is good ]

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by starschulz]

[Serayl]

What affect do you think supercharging a command module's shield defenses would have overall on such situations? That is, if a command module had a unique shield property unmatched by the other modules that made it virtually impossible to destroy until the shield defenses (the shield modules themselves) were destroyed before the command module could be brought down. If the command module had any shield energy from a nearby module, it would be extremely well protected overall. Having no shield module in range would be the one condition where it could be damaged directly.

Hmm.

My initial feeling is that it'll lead to stacks upon stacks upon stacks of shield modules, not unlike a very large library - anything to slow and frustrate attacker(s) as much as possible. Shields are very cheap at 25 metal/module, and you can fit at least 4 inside the protection field with some creative positioning.

For smaller stations, I would agree with it being a good solution; I feel it would begin to have problems when scaled up to stations containing tens, if not hundreds of modules.

I know when faced with a station that has twenty or more shield modules clustered around the command (entirely doable), I'd probably not bother unless I had a way of quickly reloading my secondaries. This would make taking on stations far away from any reloading points not worth attacking, unless I chose to take the low road and get my Exoduses back by dying and reloading a save.

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Serayl]

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Serayl]

[Vice]

Adding missile defenses of some kind to command modules could be another option to reduce the potential effect secondary weapons would have on command modules.

[starschulz]

maybe something like a visible Anti-Missile system? it wouldn't block all of the missiles, but stopping a few would go a long way.

Though suddenly two people teaming up on a bombing run would suddenly become the problem.

-And if you were at 0 range of the command it wouldn't matter

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by starschulz]

[Vice]

Correct, hence the shield approach might be more effective and beneficial, if for no other reason than it would significantly delay the command module destruction process. That would give defenders more time to respond and make missile stirring less effective at gaining a quick destruction.

Some form of secondary weapon respawn limitation could still apply, if players want it.

[starschulz]

Serayl's concern of stations simply consisting of a command and mass stacked shields might be a frustrating thing. If stations take too long to destroy, what is to stop more and more being built? Though it would take a lot of metal and time to build all of the shields, so maybe it isn't so bad.

[Rubber Chicken]

I have no real opinion about base attacking in MP, but I am for losing secondary weapons upon death.

I don't know how the Excalibur would be handled though. It's partially a secondary weapon and partially an equipment item in the respect that some of the Excal. system is in essence a portable missile factory. Perhaps, at respawn, the hardpoints would just clear and you'd have to wait for the recharge cycle?

I'm ok with whatever changes are made to stations and defenses as long as they are not impossible or take an unreasonable amount of work to solo - especially in single player.

[-K-]

I don't think the game mechanics are all at fault here. It's like an arms race really. Although I was reckless while bombing, I was still trying to survive and did a few times. I can think of some ways to guard against my dive bomb method which I started using when I saw I couldn't get to all the shields because some were actually inside the stations. However I would be more cautious and it would take more effort to bomb if missiles were not reloaded on death.
My suggestions:
Remove the ~ location broadcast so we can build hidden things.
Leave armour/hull values alone.
Fix shields being built inside the station.
Do not reload missiles on death if they have been fired already.
Perhaps add more NPC defenders if region is faction controlled.
If more defenders are added then add attackers if disputed.

[starschulz]

"Do not reload missiles on death if they have been fired already."

Don't know why i hadn't thought of that, but that i think would be the proper way of doing it. Excals don't unequip when you fire them, so you wouldn't loose it.

[Vice]

Fix shields being built inside the station.

Ability to place shield module in the upper and lower structures of a command module removed for the next update.

Remove the ~ location broadcast so we can build hidden things.
.
Do not reload missiles on death if they have been fired already.

These will likely need a lot more feedback of support for. The first has been debated for many years and has generally always returned to allowing such location information to be displayed by popular request. The second has also generally been voted down when the idea has been proposed, although probably not discussed quite as much. So perhaps an alternate form of secondary weapon loss upon respawn or some other related mechanism should be considered.

[Marvin]

I'm for losing any expended ordnance if the player is then killed or self-destructs. Granted, it hinders multiple PvP battles ... but no solution is perfect.

[CS-ACI-]

Hello,

If people are using suicide runs rather than brains it needs to be fixed.

As soon as you take the command module down, the map doesn't display it any more, you cant dock, and any items you had in it are gone. Someone would have to go and rebuild it, but it wouldn't be the same. you can't always fit the command back in the right spot, either.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, CS-ACI-. are you saying that the current system of station destruction takes skill planning and time? because it doesn't.

There should be a balance between station building and destroying so there is neither too many or too few stations. currently it is too easy to destroy them compared to building them.


If i wanted to give an example, i could log onto a server with a fresh pilot, respec for 8 exodus, and go nuke every single station on the server. i would probably get banned, but the fact that it is possible just means that someone could do it.

If you are just taking out command modules . . . . WHY?

To play correctly you need to destroy all enemy modules in a system to convert it to your own when you build a command module and run missions.

And you can re-build in exactly the same place it you have done you job correctly, removing all the enemies modules first.

Steve

[MiaZ]

I had a go at a big station today.
Lots of weapons and shields,. It was fun.
Something didn't go as planned though. At the last shield, which was placed right near almost half inside the command module.

While trying to taking out this last shield the Command module took the fire instead and it blew first. : (

Maybe if all connected shield generators need to be destroyed first before the command module can be taken out?
And I should add, shields should not be able to fuse inside the command module.

I think that might be enough. It would still be possible to take out big stations but it would take time.
Add to that the missiles not appearing inside your ship at destruction and I think it would be ok.

[Bodega]

Fix shields being built inside the station.

Remove the ~ location broadcast so we can build hidden things.
.
Do not reload missiles on death if they have been fired already.

These will likely need a lot more feedback of support for. The first has been debated for many years and has generally always returned to allowing such location information to be displayed by popular request.

I see a lot of these people in this thread as the main people always on MP and always playing PVP so I trust their opinions on the '~ showing coords' discussion. There is another thread about it right now. I just think the current system is too one-sided and needs to be balanced a bit. It doesn't have to go extreme that all data is hidden, we should be able to find a compromise.

We should be able to hide ourselves from friends and foe if wanted, basically turning off our transponders. Maybe for Civ frames, it's the law that they must be enabled so we have to pay good money to hack it or get a system to cloak it. Mil ships can have it as a toggle because military uses a FoF (friend or foe) system. Maybe hiding your coords by turning off your transponder or FoF system has the added effect that friendly missiles may target you? I'll post this to the other thread so we can discuss there.

[Janus]

I'm for losing any expended ordnance if the player is then killed or self-destructs. Granted, it hinders multiple PvP battles ... but no solution is perfect.

I think ordinance, expended or not should be lost in the same manner as cargo if the player dies from PvP or a station's guns. The perfect solution (for me) would be to lose all cargo, CM, and ordinance anytime a player was killed, but for gaming purposes I understand this is not an option.

[Radikal]

Have some code maker that sets for station/city saves. If saved at one of those locations there is no weapon/equipment loss, but if you saved at deploy hanger or open space then you lose it.

[Serayl]

If you are just taking out command modules . . . . WHY?

To play correctly you need to destroy all enemy modules in a system to convert it to your own when you build a command module and run missions.

And you can re-build in exactly the same place it you have done you job correctly, removing all the enemies modules first.

Steve

There is no 'correct' way to dispose of a station as it stands, and there is no requirement to remove every single station module in every single sector of a region to convert the territory to your faction. All you've got to do is kill enough NPCs - stations do not factor anywhere in the territory % calculations whatsoever.

The sole reason for killing stations from a territory taking/holding perspective is to prevent the opposing faction from being able to run contracts, which guarentee hostile spawns. Running contracts as a means of influencing territory% is far more efficient than dropping a sensor and hunting any roaming enemy NPCs. Now, the only module that lets a player take contracts is the command module. This module also doubles as a place to refuel, reload, buy equipment, store things, save, craft items and so forth.

Thus, if your goal is to win a territory war or simply hamstring the other faction, the only thing you have to do is pop command modules everywhere. Nothing else a station possesses factors into either goal. As a side benefit, most command modules, particularly for player stations are placed in such a way that they cannot be replaced in their original location, forcing the person who made it to drop a new command in a sub-optimal location. At that point, it becomes even easier to pop it.

If what you are saying were true, station assaults and flipping territory would take so long as to be impractical. Dismantling a pre-made station entirely takes a minimum of thirty or so minutes right now. That estimate assumes you are uninterrupted for the entire process - it would become virtually impossible to do anything at all if anyone decided to bother you during that process.

Also, you can drop a friendly command onto an old enemy station no matter how many enemy modules still exist. This is because friendly modules gain the shield benefits from enemy shield modules and enemy turrets do not fire on friendly modules.

I'm for losing any expended ordnance if the player is then killed or self-destructs. Granted, it hinders multiple PvP battles ... but no solution is perfect.

I do agree with this. It does hinder stringing tons of PvP fights together, yes. Part of that drawback could be mitigated by expanding the missile selection at some stations, namely high-technology ones that rarely stock direct-damage missiles (Rockeyes, Starfires, Exoduses).

In all the instances where I've played station defense so far, I have made it a goal of mine to die as few times as possible, even if I lose equipment/guns while fighting. When I tried to hold out against K and Starschulz last night, I did so while missing two equipment items, one of which was my Cannon Heatsink. It definitely forces you to make-do with whatever the game's RNG throws at you and to make some tough choices, namely "can I spend a minute reloading my missiles without compromising my objective?"

[Edited on 2-10-2016 by Serayl]