Exodus Spam - Suicide - Base runs

[Rubber Chicken]

Sorry, double post.

On a whim, I just checked out an MP server. I found a hostile station that had about 4 more shield modules concentrated to cover each other and the command module built onto it by a player. After multiple tries to attack the station, I simply could not make a dent in the shields. With my current setup, I know I can take out single player game-default stations without too much issue.

So... My question is... Do shield modules stack in effectiveness?
If that's the case, then what's to prevent players from making invincible stations? And, why would suiciding to regain exodus missiles be an issue if they're useless versus super-stacked shield modules? Maybe shield modules should be set that only one can cover a single area at a time.
You could stagger them to cover a larger area, but not stack them to concentrate on a 'core' area.

[starschulz]

They don't stack in max shield, but they do stack in shield regeneration.

[Iron man]

How about make the default station indestructible?

[PaulB]

May I shouldn't throw in my 2 cents worth since I can't play the game but.......

If I follow some of the arguments the I don't think I agree with them.
I grant I'm no scientist but I don't grant that Einsiten's theory of relativity is in fact law since humankind has not advanced to the technological point to really test it.
All that being said, Star Trek, Battlestsar Galactica or an other movie you care to name would all be flops if they imposed limits of inability to fire forward missile or guns becuase the ships was traveling at X forward speed.

Even if you take the theory of relativity as law, the speed of any weapon you fire will have it's speed at that of it's own plus the speed of the ship firing it as long as the ship hasinf come close to the speed of light.
So if your ship is traveling at 4000m/s and you fire a Viper at 1200m/s then the total speed of the viper in forward travel will be 5200m/s until it has to change course to track it's target.

Until the speed approaches the speed of light don't bother me with any other details.

I like the Startrek episode where some enemy, I forget who, fire a power beam at the Enterprise and Kirk set the ship in accelerting reverse speed in an attempt to try to outrun or at least put enough distance between ontl when the Beam does finally hit the Enterprise is slightly damaged but not destroyed.

That was one thing I always wanted in EM, more distance to weapons and some Energy type missiles, aka Plasma, Proton, Photon, with high power, longer range and tracking but with diminishing yield when they did travel those extended longer distances to the target.
But that's just my opinion.

[Rubber Chicken]

@ Starshulz:

If regeneration rates can stack faster than the most powerful weapons a solo player can carry do damage, I'm going to say that's an issue. Granted, a lone ship attacking a station should have to work quite a bit to make headway, but stations - even in MP - should be solo-able. The reason I say this is that ALC dedicated players will almost always outnumber FDN dedicated players due to ALC having prime starting conditions and FDN not so much. From what I've observed, FDN pilots have a much higher likelihood of having to run lone-wolf attacks if they desire to affect change on their preferred server. If the balance between ALC and FDN was consistently 50/50 and both sides could coordinate group effort attacks, then I'd say it is what it is. I'm not saying FDN never has any moments of numerical superiority and coordination. I'm saying that there's a good bit less than ALC most of the time. Hence the need for solo-able MP stations.

If ALC manages to coordinate attacks on FDN stations, then build super-shielded stations in all of the charted systems, then the 'war' is pretty much a foregone conclusion. FDN players will be stuck working to hide their holdings in uncharted systems, which brings us to the other thread about how the ~ list or, also in this case, the quadrant map territory overlay can give away players' and key stations' positions.

I kind of agree with Ironman that default stations should be non-destructible. It's my view that they should 'flip' with a system control change. The reasoning could be that if there's enough of a faction's presence in said system, then it's more than likely that (an) infantry invasion(s) of the hostile station(s) was/were successful due to sheer numerical advantage of the invading army.
Defensive turrets and shield modules should still be destructible though, and mandatory to attack for the change to happen. It should also give a % point to the conquering faction, if it doesn't already. The reason being that destroying these defensive emplacements is an action the player can participate in to 'aid' the invading infantry force so their armored-personnel-carrier ships aren't destroyed en route to the station.

Some imagination might be required to 'see' the invasion happening, as I don't think it would be necessary to actually turn the battle into a scripted sequence. Destroying the defenses, then seeing the friendly AI approach and fire on the station, like they are already prone to do, would be satisfactory enough for most players I would think.

I understand that it would limit some building options for the player if they wish to replace/rename a default station at a favorite locale, but I'm personally o.k. with that.





[Edited on 2-12-2016 by Rubber Chicken]

[Edited on 2-12-2016 by Rubber Chicken]

[Edited on 2-12-2016 by Rubber Chicken]

[Iron man]

I kind of agree with Ironman that default stations should be non-destructible. It's my view that they should 'flip' with a system control change. The reasoning could be that if there's enough of a faction's presence in said system, then it's more than likely that (an) infantry invasion(s) of the hostile station(s) was/were successful due to sheer numerical advantage of the invading army.

+1

[Serayl]

@ Starshulz:

If regeneration rates can stack faster than the most powerful weapons a solo player can carry do damage, I'm going to say that's an issue. Granted, a lone ship attacking a station should have to work quite a bit to make headway, but stations - even in MP - should be solo-able. The reason I say this is that ALC dedicated players will almost always outnumber FDN dedicated players due to ALC having prime starting conditions and FDN not so much. From what I've observed, FDN pilots have a much higher likelihood of having to run lone-wolf attacks if they desire to affect change on their preferred server. If the balance between ALC and FDN was consistently 50/50 and both sides could coordinate group effort attacks, then I'd say it is what it is. I'm not saying FDN never has any moments of numerical superiority and coordination. I'm saying that there's a good bit less than ALC most of the time. Hence the need for solo-able MP stations.

If ALC manages to coordinate attacks on FDN stations, then build super-shielded stations in all of the charted systems, then the 'war' is pretty much a foregone conclusion. FDN players will be stuck working to hide their holdings in uncharted systems, which brings us to the other thread about how the ~ list or, also in this case, the quadrant map territory overlay can give away players' and key stations' positions.

I kind of agree with Ironman that default stations should be non-destructible. It's my view that they should 'flip' with a system control change. The reasoning could be that if there's enough of a faction's presence in said system, then it's more than likely that (an) infantry invasion(s) of the hostile station(s) was/were successful due to sheer numerical advantage of the invading army.
Defensive turrets and shield modules should still be destructible though, and mandatory to attack for the change to happen. It should also give a % point to the conquering faction, if it doesn't already. The reason being that destroying these defensive emplacements is an action the player can participate in to 'aid' the invading infantry force so their armored-personnel-carrier ships aren't destroyed en route to the station.

Some imagination might be required to 'see' the invasion happening, as I don't think it would be necessary to actually turn the battle into a scripted sequence. Destroying the defenses, then seeing the friendly AI approach and fire on the station, like they are already prone to do, would be satisfactory enough for most players I would think.

I understand that it would limit some building options for the player if they wish to replace/rename a default station at a favorite locale, but I'm personally o.k. with that.

Right now if you encounter a giant stack of shield modules, your only option is to load up on Exoduses and use them to punch a hole in one modules' shield face, then either pound it down with particles (if it's safe enough) or unload a couple extra Exoduses to ensure it dies.

As I stated earlier in this thread, two or more shields covering more or less the same area makes it very difficult or flat out impossible to damage using particles only. Since shields are cost 25 metal per module, they're very easy to concentrate en masse in an area. In fact, you probably don't even need that many turrets; simply place 50+ shields in a big, fat cube, add a few turrets to prevent people from using particles safely, and you will have just made the most irritating station to assault. Triple points if it's far away from anywhere your opponents can reload Exoduses.

The other element of the ALC/FDN conflict occurs when one side, almost always FDN, is understaffed by players. What ends up happening is that either one side gets overwhelmed by superior numbers or they get their core stations sniped while everyone's offline.

On DarkStar E, I logged in at Sierra Station after a day away from the game to find that Sierra Station had been completely destroyed and an ALC firebase, complete with two rings of turrets rebuilt on top of its old location. I was able to survive this 'ambush' as I recognized what had happened even before I had full control of my ship, and because I was in a military frame. This sort of thing infuriates me quite a lot; I don't care much if I get had in this manner since I know how to deal with it. My beef here is that anyone new who chooses FDN typically spawns at Sierra Station depending on their start choice. As soon as they load up, they will get wrecked and they have no chance of countering what's happening to them.

I'm not sure about making default stations invulnerable. I think it'd be better if the default stations were reinforced and stations in core systems (Pearl for ALC, Sierra/Agate for FDN) weren't so easy to wipe out. I definitely would prefer to see the AI respond to station attacks in multiplayer, as they can serve as a distraction/screening force at the very least.

At any rate, I think this issue would also be less severe if both factions on a server had more people playing - I doubt the current system was designed with only three or four active players per faction in mind. It'd likely work more as Vice had envisioned with sufficient people playing.

Unfortunately, low player counts is also becoming a fairly big problem since release week and it's one I'm not sure how to solve at the moment either. It may even warrant its own thread.

EDIT: Had a dumb-ish idea. What would people think about making stations gain defensive bonuses or be flat-out untouchable while the territory % is not disputed or in favour of your faction? It would mean people would have to make constant incursions to drop CMDs for contract running in hostile space (and thus disrupting those would be a big deal... maybe not a horrible idea with a ~/intel-related tweak or two).

[Edited on 2-12-2016 by Serayl]

[Edited on 2-12-2016 by Serayl]

[Rubber Chicken]

I can see what you are saying, especially about the starting station ambush. Hence why I suggested that default stations should be vulnerable to being flipped, but not destroyed.

Perhaps refining that idea could be in order. -
Every gated system and warzone gets one default station that cannot be destroyed or additionally built onto.
Starting stations cannot be flipped or destroyed and have a sufficient sector buffer zone (including the nearest planet) that cannot be flipped as well.

Carriers not at the warzones can be flipped if not implemented already.
Stations at warzones, are tagged as IMG and at least one station is invincible.
Carriers at warzones should allow anybody that's willing to fight the Vonari access but at a reduced tech level and ship access level for opposing faction. ie; ALC at an FDN warzone carrier would need to have a full Fleet Admiral rank to unlock ship availability beyond, let's say, a Shadow frame, and vice versa.

This leaves everywhere else open and gives players an ability to safely dock at warzones and co-op with opposing faction players on combat missions if desired.
After all one of the dynamics of warzones is how the 2 factions deal with each other vs. the Vonari.
Perhaps the optional Mercenary Numpad-minus function of target-designating other clans as friendly could be brought back but only apply to warzones. You would have the option of 'greening' other players in the WZ, but the moment you or they leaves the warzone, the 'green' wears off.

And you're probably right, player count discussions should probably be put into another thread.

[Marvin]

I like the Startrek episode where some enemy, I forget who, fire a power beam at the Enterprise and Kirk set the ship in accelerting reverse speed in an attempt to try to outrun or at least put enough distance between ontl when the Beam does finally hit the Enterprise is slightly damaged but not destroyed.

IIRC, I think you mean "Balance of Terror" ... the first encounter with Romulans since the war (where Spock's father's twin played the Romulan commander).

[Marvin]

At any rate, I think this issue would also be less severe if both factions on a server had more people playing - I doubt the current system was designed with only three or four active players per faction in mind. It'd likely work more as Vice had envisioned with sufficient people playing.

Unfortunately, low player counts is also becoming a fairly big problem since release week and it's one I'm not sure how to solve at the moment either. It may even warrant its own thread.

I'm pretty sure the over-proliferation of severs has a lot to do with the low player count on each one.

[starschulz]

I like the idea of standard bases being indestructible, It would solve people going to starter systems and nuking the stations new players spawn in.


And having stations be much stronger while a faction is in control of the system sounds like a great idea. If the shield module's regeneration stacking was removed but in order to take the station out you had to flip the system to disputed and take out the shield modules before taking out the command, that would seem fair, right? A better station would be based on how well you defended the shield modules, and not how well you defend the blind spots on sniping a command module.

[Marvin]

The idea of indestructible "home" stations wouldn't work too well (or at all) in SP. And it would unnecessarily limit what you could script in the way of a quest.

[Rubber Chicken]

The idea of indestructible "home" stations wouldn't work too well (or at all) in SP. And it would unnecessarily limit what you could script in the way of a quest.

Perhaps 'destruction: off' stations could be designated in the server-side program?
I think that for MP the stations designated as 'destruction: off' should not be admin toggle-able.

Even if it was just the home sector of the each faction, that might be enough. Or... If you want to filp/destroy the opponents home sector installation(s), you MUST 99.9% the map.

[starschulz]

I don't see how more server options could be bad!

[DaveK]

May I shouldn't throw in my 2 cents worth since I can't play the game but.......

If I follow some of the arguments the I don't think I agree with them.
I grant I'm no scientist but I don't grant that Einsiten's theory of relativity is in fact law since humankind has not advanced to the technological point to really test it.
All that being said, Star Trek, Battlestsar Galactica or an other movie you care to name would all be flops if they imposed limits of inability to fire forward missile or guns becuase the ships was traveling at X forward speed.

Even if you take the theory of relativity as law, the speed of any weapon you fire will have it's speed at that of it's own plus the speed of the ship firing it as long as the ship hasinf come close to the speed of light.
So if your ship is traveling at 4000m/s and you fire a Viper at 1200m/s then the total speed of the viper in forward travel will be 5200m/s until it has to change course to track it's target.

Until the speed approaches the speed of light don't bother me with any other details.

I like the Startrek episode where some enemy, I forget who, fire a power beam at the Enterprise and Kirk set the ship in accelerting reverse speed in an attempt to try to outrun or at least put enough distance between ontl when the Beam does finally hit the Enterprise is slightly damaged but not destroyed.

That was one thing I always wanted in EM, more distance to weapons and some Energy type missiles, aka Plasma, Proton, Photon, with high power, longer range and tracking but with diminishing yield when they did travel those extended longer distances to the target.
But that's just my opinion.

First point: I agree totally, but (there's always a but ) if Vice chooses to follow universal laws as we at presently understand them then (among other things) yes ...

• a missile's actual flight velocity towards its target should = ship's velocity relative to the target + the missile's reported velocity (and the speed of light argument is irrelevant since it's related to time dilation (and I'm not aware of any sci fi story that has utilised it an a reasoned way ... but I'd love to know if any has ) and anyway the max speed we can achieve in EM/EL is only around 8K/10K
• a particle weapon's velocity should follow the same rule but the particles are travelling so fast as they leave the cannon and the ship's velocity is so (relatively) small that it can be ignored
• a beam cannon propagates at the speed of light regardless of the ship's velocity

Sorry Kirk, but you're toast

However, if Vice chooses to follow the universal laws as we at presently understand them then ...

• If would take years in RL (never mind game time) to travel from Earth to Saturn, decades to get to Pluto and tens of thousands of years to get to the nearest star system from Sol (Centauri) and hundreds of millions of years to get to Andromeda
• Measuring the acceleration of our ships (change in speed/time) we would be subject in afterburner acceleration from a standing start an acceleration of 28g! Even accelerating from 4000 to 5000m/s subjects us to 5g - despite this we are limited to a max speed of 8K/10K. Thank heavens for inertial dampers based on graviton particle emitters
• Building stations and cities would be impossible for mercs (though the Techy Guide explains how it works utilising some of the weirder outcomes of Relativity and Quantum theory. The rate of a module every few minutes is stretching modern theories - though again the TG explains how the variation in physical laws and rate of passing of time can vary between universes within the multiverse allowing the wonders of a build and a deploy constructor to be fitted to a 50m long ship

On balance I'll go with Vice's choice to bend the Laws of Physics! and to focus on playability

Second point: as a scientist I would point out that that all hypotheses/theories/laws are expressed in a way that make them possible to disprove them (show that they are incorrect), but none can be proved to be correct - the first counter evidence kills them (for example the philosopher's argument about the 'all swans are white' hypothesis - it can't ever be proved to be correct. However, the more evidence that you gather that doesn't show a non-white swan the more confidence you can have in the hypothesis that all swans are white - eventually it could become a theory and yep, it was disproved by the discovery of black swans in Oz)

Relativity has passed every test (to date) it has been subjected to ... and now 100 years after it was proposed and gravitational waves popped out of the relativity equations, gravitational waves seem to have been spotted by LIGO (yesterday was the public announcement). Relativity has passed every test to an exquisite level of accuracy (and precision) in many very different areas of physics and engineering (GPS satellites have to take relativistic time dilation into account or your reported position would be a few kilometers out). The only reason it's not a law is that physicists are still struggling integrating relativistic gravity with quantum gravity - it's a theory that is at the moment as solid as the theory that the sun will rise each morning and set each evening - you can't prove that it will but you can have a great deal of confidence that it will ... unless you live at the North or South Pole

A law is a human concept - an attempt to describe and explain an aspect of the physical universe - there is a point when a hypothesis (mere suggestion) gathers enough evidential support to become a theory (reliable enough to be worth spending significant time and $$ testing further) and eventually is accepted as a law ... but only until further evidence shows it to be wrong - like Newton's 'Law of Gravitation' was subsumed into Einstein's 'General Theory of Relativity'. Newton's Law works perfectly well for everyday use, and is a darned sight easier to apply - but it didn't explain Mercury's odd orbital behaviour

Overall what frustrates scientists is when non scientists proclaim that since you can't prove 'X' then 'X' isn't true - for example since scientists can't prove that global warming is happening and that a particular storm is caused by GW and scientists can't prove that human activity has an impact on GW then GW isn't true and humans haven't caused it anyway and therefore we can ignore it ... and all go to hell together in a handcart. (Or in practice our children and their children can book places on the handcart). It's interesting that EM and EL seem to be posited on the idea of Humanity needing to leave Earth because we're pooing on our own doorstep

But then again ... EM and EL are not RL after all

[starschulz]

So, i just tested it after the new patch. i was able to bring a command down to 57% with a full exodus strike and particle cannon barrage. However, if that wasn't an ALC station i was shooting at to test it i would have been blasted to smithereens by any well placed weapon turrets. [ only one face of the shield was taken down by the exodus ]

I fear that a team of two could synchronize and destroy it in one shot, however. [ nobody is on, RIP ]

[starschulz]

I Did some more testing - I can barely out damage the shield regeneration of two shield modules with a trebuchet cannon on a millitary ship. [ the pulsar to be specific ] I have to break the shield with a set of missiles and then i can barely out damage the regen to keep damaging it. i may have only destroyed it because of the station's turrets trying to attack me through the shield.

Also, is it intentional that lasers do absolutely nothing vs the shields on any station module? Shields might not have to be nerfed if lasers did something.

[Serayl]

I Did some more testing - I can barely out damage the shield regeneration of two shield modules with a trebuchet cannon on a millitary ship. [ the pulsar to be specific ] I have to break the shield with a set of missiles and then i can barely out damage the regen to keep damaging it. i may have only destroyed it because of the station's turrets trying to attack me through the shield.

Also, is it intentional that lasers do absolutely nothing vs the shields on any station module? Shields might not have to be nerfed if lasers did something.

Trebs do bugger-all actual damage, which is probably the main reason why you'd have trouble harming modules with one.

Beams need something to lock onto to be effective, namely a subsystem in the case of a larger target. If beams did damage shields on modules, shielding would be an absolute joke given how easily you'd be able to overcome it.

[starschulz]

I thought the idea of the Trebuchet was that it depletes shields. I will try an atlas in a bit, though.

How would it make shields an absolute joke? right now stations with 5 stacked are almost impossible to destroy without an exodus attack [ to the shields individually, not the command ] I would think that even if you took the shields down and got a few particle shots in with your remaining energy, it would at least be possible to do.

[starschulz]

I built a station and later attacked it while switched to the opposing faction. [ i used a military frame for all tests ]

1 shield vs Trebuchet - It was possible to do enough damage to take modules out.
2 shields vs Trebuchet - I was incapable of doing enough damage, without being shot down by the weapons.

4 shields vs Atlas - No damage at all. i couldn't break the regeneration with a particle cannon.

to clarify, you could destroy modules each time. If they have shields, you fire a missile first to break the shield and then take it out with particle cannon fire.


it just hit me that this is only really a problem in multiplayer, as most stations that are pre-built don't stack massive amounts of shield modules. so, It is just fine that it takes multiple people to take down a well built station now. However in multiplayer If it takes multiple people to take down a station - What would stop those two people from simply doing a coordinated double exodus strike on the Command as it stands now? I can take a command down to 50% by myself with an exodus strike and follow up Atlas shots, so with multiple people it would be just like it was before.

I could also do it myself, by Bombing each shield module individually until i could then bomb the command to pieces.

Another Observation - The NPC's that spawn around a command to "help" you only end up harming you in the long run unless something sizeable spawns near the base like a battleship. A capital will tank base shots temporarily allowing you to get some serious damage in, but the brave fighters that run in and die give 1% system economy control over to the enemy each time they die. So currently if a player flies past an AFK player of an opposing faction sitting happily in their command and then leaves - The NPC's never stop spawning and the base will continuously kill them until the AFK player in the command leaves. it means you could use that as an exploit to flip systems easily.



I am not sure what to think currently. To me, the only way of destroying stations as quickly as someone can build them feels like an exploit. Any thoughts? i am the worst at trying to communicate through text.

[Vice]

If it's too easy for modules in general, their armor can be increased as well. You referred to 'modules' generically. The armor tables for command modules is very different than it is for other module types. Did you run these experiments against the new command modules as well? If so, what were your results?

It should likely still be practical to take out modules as a solo player, although command modules should be much more challenging.

[DeathTech]

Some things are just the nature of the beast.
Preventing spawn killing is technically never possible.

The only thing we can do is all agree we do not spawn kill.

Stations are destructible in this game and as such new player spawning should really have been randomised between allied stations not in a war zone rather than two prefixed stations that can be destroyed.

In terms of punishments for death, this game has absolutely no repercussions for death other than failing to save before leaving the station when doing a contract will result in you more than likely losing its existence as the contracts are RNG over time and upon loading.

If the game intends to properly be a game, generally there should be a punishment. And generally that would be something along these lines:
-Loss of money
-Loss of status
-Loss of cargo
-Loss of random piece of equipment
-Loss of crew
-Loss of rank
-Temporary reduction to ship capabilities
-Temporary reduction in contract quality / payouts
-Increase in enemy presence in sector

Just a couple of ideas to actually make some sort of challenge to the game other than, don't get killed next time HERE HAVE ALL YOUR STUFF BACK FULLY INTACT.

The problem there is that the game basically fully relies on simply reloading your game save from before you left.
And that no penalties ever occur.


And as a final note.
Did I forget a memo or are a whole bunch of people trying to blow up a station with mediocre missiles while the "station detonator" exists specificly for destroying stations.

I may have just missed the point on that one though.

[MiaZ]

Getting your missiles back after you have used them could maybe be fixed.
So basically, penalty for using missions should be the same whether you die or not. Once you have used them you no longer have them. Excals could have timer rest back upon death.

AS far is death punishments go I feel the game is a game and for that reason I feel there should not ever be additional punishment for being destroyed.

Failure itself is the punishment and that is enough.




Stations are ok for amour I think.

A single pilot needs to destroy shield modules first before the command can be taken out. This is much better.
To be honest what I don't like in that update was the need for so many storage mods for weapons.
For me at least, destroying a station is more or less the same but building the same station not takes much longer



[Edited on 2-16-2016 by MiaZ]

[DeathTech]

The game is a game and for that reason I feel there should not ever be additional punishment for being destroyed.

Failure itself is the punishment and that is enough.

Failure itself does not encourage improvement.
Without penalties for failure, the challenge quickly goes away.
And without challenge people tend to get bored very quickly.

Bored people realise they could be playing something else.
People who find it too hard do the same.

There is a delicate balance to be found.



Also to the whole missile barrage vs shields thing.
I am pretty sure the idea for beams are to take care of shields.

If beam weapons can't do that then they are pretty bad at doing their jobs.

From what I can remember the station detonator is for taking out the control module. And beams are supposed to help deal with the shields.

After the control module is gone you can build your own to take the station over via replacement. No need to blow anything else up.

Perhaps give the beam weapons some sort of balancing bonus vs station shields?

Or maybe an emp missile?
Just throwing ideas in there.

[Marvin]

I thought we left station detonators in EM.