Defeat means something

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:59 pm

Well this has been a "bee in my bonnet" for a number of days now, but the mechanics of the game are very loose when it comes to any deterant of aggressive actions.

As I understand the only real mechanic is the minor adjustment of influence in a sector in MP when a clan member attacks another.

Also stations increase their construction costs with rank and wealth to a point where they reach the tens of millions making station detonators more than a viable economic option.

With the ability to save the game at prefered points, this makes the life of a terrorist or pirate rather easy and to some extent inconsequntial of the outcome.

This means that for anyone who enjoys the construction side of the game does so with an element of risk and a potential need to keep their economic activity up to cover any potential losses.

When you combine this with subversive techniques of removing stations when no opponents are even online to defend the situation it makes regular normal activities of policing almost impossible also.

Personally considering the amount of time invested into maintaining clan influence in sectors it can be tiresome to not really have a deterant that would be effective against anyone wanting to upheave any hard efforts in this area.

In short PvP is inconsequential and stations you build simply at your own risk.

With this in mind I have thought of a couple of ideas to make things seem more of a challenge and to have some consequence to PvP encounters.

1. Stations

The easiest solution here is to increase the price of station detonators. Since players have reported station prices reaching 40 million in some cases and usnure if it can even go higher I'm unsure how to price the detonator. As of course earlier stations may be much cheaper to invest in.

The other solution would be to cap stations under or equal to the average price of a detonator. However when you also consider that others may wish to purchase licenses to utilise another players station these costs increase further. So much in some cases its cheaper for players to simply build their own stations elsewhere.

Also to get best economic value you may also wish to add in the supporting stations (ore collector, energy station, research stations) costs that support the stations economy.

Another aid could be increasing the time of the detonator so that in the rare chance someone does wish to use one whilst the owners or affiliated members are online they can respond in a reasonable amount of time. But in most cases having a timer is nullified by this activity done when the owners aren;t even online at minimal risk.

You could also have an opportunity that the station itself responds to the aggression and tries to prevent the detonator from being effective and even turning on the aggressor. Sentry lasers anyone?

I've yet to test if you can use a detonator and then set up a shield whilst wating for the timer to run down. If so it would seem sensible to disable deployment whilst this activity is underway.

Also considering that station records are held server side. Its perfectly possible to use a detonator and reload from a previous save. I'm expecting in this case that the station would be gone, but the detonator would magically reappear in the users inventory in the previous save. A save on activation could repair this potential exploit.

Similarly if a chain of stations can be built and a player revert back to a previous save finding the stations still on the server, it could potentiall completley remove station costs. So again a similar save on activation would make sense here also.

2. PVP

I'd like to see some penalty imposed. Specifically to PvP only encounters. This could be the cost of the ship and equipment or some other sizeable chunk of money.

You could introduce some optional insurance payments here that could be periodically removed from the player that covers the costs of any PvP death. The payments would be less of course. Although with increasing PvP deaths this could rise and decrease over time where PvP deaths do not occur.

To assist training, I'd suggest penalties from same clan be ignored. And independants could then use an arbitary [PVP] tag to train if they wished?

I was going to suggest a Virtual reality training area. Such that if you dock at any station, you could enter an single instanced area for all where PvP penalties would be ignored. This would of course be seperate from normal space. But a player would have their details saved prior to enter the virtual space, and any action within would not effect anything, including equipment and status details etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow the above is only some ideas and narks that don't really upset me about the game, but would bring a more thought out behaviour in game if you have to consider extra consequences for actions.

I realise that Evochron is more of a sandbox game and currently may have more of a "carebear" attitude to players to avoid potential abuse so as to not despoil newer players enjoyment of MP. Also for those who do not like the PvP area of the game may also dislike the introduction of penalties in any shape or form. But without some in game mechanics to add some weight to actions in game their is little deterant currently for individuals to do as they will without care or thought. So in this sense it spoils the game for those who have to face these areas that I view as problematic.

Now I don't beleive I may have all the solutions and others may have other ideas they want to discuss around these topics. Also I haven't checked but I'm also pretty sure this will have been discussed in previous genres of evochron so I just hope I don't receive a spectrum of "flogging a dead horse" comments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully some helpful "funsics" could be introduced to aid at the end of the day?

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:39 pm

Oh dear, you are upset, aren't you. I wonder if your attitude would be the same if you were a member of a non=beta tester minority clan.

After all, your clan started the game already in possession of a high percentage of Evochron, did you hear anyone moan? Nope! We realised that beta testers had some reward for their hard work in the beta testing mode.

PvP is fun, mostly. You want an additional penalty, aside from having your ship blown up? Now you want the loser, in a PvP contest to also forfeit some of his/her ships equipment/money???

Yer pays yer money and takes yer chances! If your territory is undefended, tough - it's an open game, live with it!

SDWeimer · Post by **SDWeimer** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:51 pm

Mr pelador is now claiming if you place stations in warzones that sw has claimed it is an act of agression, i put up a stupid shield array and he wants to label me a terrrorist cause i thought i was helping. the whole idea of a clan owning or controlling a wz is just rediculous.

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:33 pm

Originally posted by SDWeimer
Mr pelador is now claiming if you place stations in warzones that sw has claimed it is an act of agression, i put up a stupid shield array and he wants to label me a terrrorist cause i thought i was helping. the whole idea of a clan owning or controlling a wz is just rediculous.

It was absolutely nothing to do with placement of stations. I simply asked you to consider that your concentrated members of UE where effecting the sector influence whilst you were doing contracts in C WZ.

I simply asked you to use Talsion which was a neutral sector so it wouldn't have such an impact.

I further added that I thought the influence of WZ's as a bit daft and would prefer to see them off the influcence geography map.

Apart from that I was only being cordial with you whilst following clan orders. Whereas you, jovially I assume, threatened to take down all stations in SW war zones.

If you have a problem with SW policy then please speak to the clan superiors in the clan page, unless you have a comment relevant to the post?

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:49 pm

Originally posted by Ravenfeeder
Oh dear, you are upset, aren't you. I wonder if your attitude would be the same if you were a member of a non=beta tester minority clan.

After all, your clan started the game already in possession of a high percentage of Evochron, did you hear anyone moan? Nope! We realised that beta testers had some reward for their hard work in the beta testing mode.

PvP is fun, mostly. You want an additional penalty, aside from having your ship blown up? Now you want the loser, in a PvP contest to also forfeit some of his/her ships equipment/money???

Yer pays yer money and takes yer chances! If your territory is undefended, tough - it's an open game, live with it!

Well I didnt make the rules about Beta testing. I wont ask wether you offered or were invitied. I don't know what would remedy that situation.

All I'm saying is that if you were consider things on a par, for a clan with no territory and money to act as a terrorist you simply have no consequence for your actions currently. Rather one sided in the long term no. And completley off putting in the game if you only have a cowardly terrorist organisation to face with nothing to lose in the process? Where's the incentive to even put any hard work into infrastructure and territorial control if you can't defend it. And the only way to do that is to have some real disincentive to aggressors.

Currently even if people where there to defend, you'd still have the edge to rinse and repeat your actions as needs as their no consequence for the agression. Hostilities could go on ad infinitum with no real outcome. So what would be the point of it all?

Others put hard work into their area of the game for their enjoyment. And you want all the mechanics working in your favour because your fun is more important? So as much as the beta testing seems a little unfavourable to you, something I wasn't even around for.

And I'm sorry if I joined a large clan. Buts thats always going to be an unaswerable riddle as the largest will always win in theory, What do you want me to do, leave SW and join BA cause you decided to be aggresive against larger clans with only a handfull of people and then want to gripe about it and make sure the game works all in your favour, get real.

Thats before mentioning random acts of "ass hattery" by independants (aka pirates etc).

*sigh*

Perhaps I should just go back to being an independant. Not worth the hassle really.

[Edited on 2-10-2010 by Pelador]

Zenith · Post by **Zenith** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:52 pm

One of the reasons I've been avoiding MP of late, just too much politicking and squabbling between clans and players. Sure, a bit of conflict can be fun, but some of these are near enough personal grudges.

Rush · Post by **Rush** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:40 pm

Playing in MP, I noticed that, apart from the clans, everything is the same as in single player (or at least that's my impression).

I would like to see more Human vs Vonari combat, maybe with the same mechanism as the clan influence. Fight in the WZ to fend the Vonari off. If you don't fight enough, it will be the Vonari who take over the system and begin to blow up things. Or at least become a very large number with heavy presence.

Is that possible/playable/enjoyable? I think this would unite players and encourage MP and cooperation, rather than divide them for territorial disputes

(Just my two cents

)

Nigel_Strange · Post by **Nigel_Strange** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:42 pm

Yup. That's why I pretty much stick to single player. I want to enjoy the game, which means avoiding politics and rudeness.

That said, whenever I have gotten onto MP, I am usually in the company of cordial and agreeable company.

However, it only takes one rude person to ruin the experience. Before anyone gets upset, I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm just stating generalities.

Post by **Marvin** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:05 pm

I just wonder why anyone would complain about there not being a police force. If you want one, then start one. Then you not only have one, but you have it the way you want it.

But, of course, after you've built one, there will be plenty of other players complaining about how you operate that police force ... but who would never dream of spending any of their own precious time as a police volunteer.

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:14 pm

Pelador, I'm not griping about the beta testers, they did the work, they got some rewards, no skin off my nose. If it weren't for all their hard work we might not have EM. I didn't volunteer because volunteers weren't asked for. I presume that Vice has his team of testers that he is used to working with, and they with him - to produce damn good games.

You're the one doing all the moaning.

If a clan wants to claim a territory, then, they have to defend that claim. The rest are quite entitled to, if they want, to knock them off their perch - it's a game!!! There's nothing personal in it.

I forgot to add, imho, WZs shouldn't be clan territory. If you don't like other players in, what, you seem to consider to be your paddling poor, well... You've got guns, cannon, and missiles to enforce it - if you can!

[Edited on 2-10-2010 by Ravenfeeder]

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:21 pm

Originally posted by Marvin
I just wonder why anyone would complain about there not being a police force. If you want one, then start one. Then you not only have one, but you have it the way you want it.

But, of course, after you've built one, there will be plenty of other players complaining about how you operate that police force ... but who would never dream of spending any of their own precious time as a police volunteer.

lol, At least the Police have powers to deter criminals.

Or are you suggesting some form of technological future handcuffs? Maybe a missile that covers the ship in a gluey foam?

Need to add a prison station option to keep players held up in for a time for their actions?

However at present the mechanics of the game has less deterence than a parking ticket imho.

------------------------------------

Besides the idea here is that the "criminals" to continue with the colourful analogy would have an equal impact on PvP outcomes as they have the same possibility of applying the same penalties.

Post by **Marvin** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:26 pm

A county jail sounds like a good idea to me. That's one idea I could get behind.

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:38 pm

Originally posted by Ravenfeeder
Pelador, I'm not griping about the beta testers, they did the work, they got some rewards, no skin off my nose. If it weren't for all their hard work we might not have EM. I didn't volunteer because volunteers weren't asked for. I presume that Vice has his team of testers that he is used to working with, and they with him - to produce damn good games.

You're the one doing all the moaning.

If a clan wants to claim a territory, then, they have to defend that claim. The rest are quite entitled to, if they want, to knock them off their perch - it's a game!!! There's nothing personal in it.

I forgot to add, imho, WZs shouldn't be clan territory. If you don't like other players in, what, you seem to consider to be your paddling poor, well... You've got guns, cannon, and missiles to enforce it - if you can!

[Edited on 2-10-2010 by Ravenfeeder]

Funny thing is I'm not upset.

As to your problem with the beta reward inequalities I can sympathise but still doesn't detract from the inbalance of no risk game play.

What your failing to grasp is that guns mean nothing as if you lose there is no detriment. So in theory you can repeat attacking ad infinitum against all odds, just go back to that convenient last save. Basically without a consequence for PvP actions it means wars or "encounters" can go on ad inifinitum and nothing would change as a result.

Or if you have a troublesome opponent whats to deter them from a region when they could feasible die and die and die and still remain the same. Just stay where they are until they get an opportunity or ignore the defenders and give them a run around instead as there is little risk.

Best chances are however that statics targets that have to be defended are more easily attacked as a result. And if the other party has no infrastructure to do a base race with what deterent is there then for them? Thus as I've described there is no real deterent to hostilities. Also if subversive tactics of attacking whilst no opponents are present well, I think that one is pretty obvious I hope. So the game is very skewed in this regard.

I appreciate that no-one likes penalties, but can you explain my incentive when what I do is potentilly irrelevant and can despoil efforts put into the game?

I mean the penalties I'm describing for PvP and the stations is ideally to be on a par and equal footing for both sides. But at least with them present there is something to act as a penalty to at least make aggressive action something to think twice about. At the moment mostly inconsequential.

Post by **Marvin** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:48 pm

Originally posted by Pelador

I appreciate that no-one likes penalties....

I like the idea of penalties. The hooker is ... penalties for doing what? MMaggio (or any server host) can already boot a player for improper behavior. The problem, then, is in defining what type of behavior is considered improper (or "illegal"). Same goes for in-game ... what would constitute a violation of law and order? How would Vice define illegal activity so that it could be added to the AI's behavior?

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:52 pm

I have no problem with beta testers, nor, have I anywhere stated that I do so.

I'll try again; it's a game, it's not real life. If someone blows up your station, go and blow theirs up, or, blow them up.

The way things are going, the EM universe will soon be wall-to-wall with stations and, we'll have to fly with one finger on the Alt button to stop getting sucked into some stations grav field.

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:03 pm

Originally posted by Marvin
Originally posted by Pelador

I appreciate that no-one likes penalties....
I like the idea of penalties. The hooker is ... penalties for doing what? MMaggio (or any server host) can already boot a player for improper behavior. The problem, then, is in defining what type of behavior is considered improper (or "illegal"). Same goes for in-game ... what would constitute a violation of law and order? How would Vice define illegal activity so that it could be added to the AI's behavior?

I'm not suggesting that the AI needs to be incorporated. This is purely for PvP encounters. As such it would be left as a guidance for players to police themselves based on the organisations they set up and affiliations or alliances they have.

Considering the static elements of reputation to the AI factions in MP (or temporary adjustments) I can't see how the AI could descriminate in the best of cases. And I don't want to suggest that good reputation AI organisations in clan held sectors to respond to aid clan members with the possibilities of opposing factions helping the aggressor. This would make certain scenarios in sectors more favoured and biased.

If your suggesting there's an unwritten process as to how servers are managed and players behaviours are organised I'd love to know about it, especially on remula one that advertises itself as a "no rules server"? Like to know more about this or any guidelines.

As much as I can see pitfalls for introducing penalties like bullying new players or griefing that could be handled by administrators, I'd still very much like to see something in the mechanics so that its inherant in the game design instead. Fortunatley the EM community seems a mature and sensible one "so far".

BraveHart · Post by **BraveHart** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:09 pm

Originally posted by Marvin
A county jail sounds like a good idea to me. That's one idea I could get behind.

"Awww that's cuz you know they have Fried Chicken fer lunch and pigs feet fer dinner"...

LOL

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:12 pm

Originally posted by Ravenfeeder
I have no problem with beta testers, nor, have I anywhere stated that I do so.

I said the "beta rewards" not testers.

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:41 pm

I also have no problem with beta testers getting some cookies for their work. Mind, I am wondering how you got to FltAdm and Legend in such a short time, you must live in-game!

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:49 pm

Originally posted by Ravenfeeder
I also have no problem with beta testers getting some cookies for their work. Mind, I am wondering how you got to FltAdm and Legend in such a short time, you must live in-game!

Well if you don't mind why did you bring it up as relevant in this topic?

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:51 pm

I didn't bring it up in any derogatory way! In fact, the opposite.

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:01 pm

Originally posted by Ravenfeeder
Oh dear, you are upset, aren't you. I wonder if your attitude would be the same if you were a member of a non=beta tester minority clan.

After all, your clan started the game already in possession of a high percentage of Evochron, did you hear anyone moan? Nope! We realised that beta testers had some reward for their hard work in the beta testing mode.

Seems to me as if your a bit concerned here? But if you say your not bothered fair enough. I'm happy to consider it as slightly irrelavant in connection with the topic material if you want as I didn't want to talk about beta rewards but the effects of in game mechanics.

Interestingly when I first joined close to the release day, SW owned only C WZ and a small amount of Cerulean. Which suggests it might have started from scratch or at least not this high percentage you speak of.

As to my own status, would you like me to stop playing so you can catch up? (only Comodore btw)

[Edited on 2-10-2010 by Pelador]

soulsacrifice · Post by **soulsacrifice** » Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:53 am

Gotta say, I agree with all the points you make in the OP Pelador.

Seems to me it would balance out the game a little more and make people in multiplayer think a little more about their actions in mp (if I decide to try and destroy a station, i'd like for whoever built that station to be able to defend it). I don't think many people would use the exploits such as reloading the game to avoide costs in mp, but I wouldn't see the harm in saving after constructing or setting a detonator.

Sinbad · Post by **Sinbad** » Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:17 am

If I may throw in my tuppence worth...

Anyone is free to do contracts/missions in a system controlled by a clan. However it is down to the controlling clan to decide how to react in order to maintain their percentage of control. If they are of democratic values then they simply have to work harder to do even more contracts to maintain that percentage, with no animosity or aggression necessary. If they are of less ethical values (and I could think of 1 or 2 clans

) then they can resort to aggression or intimidation to maintain their control and shoot down anyone trying to do contracts in their territory. That sort of action would turn their territory into a dictatorate and result in a clan war.

In my opinion both types of action are feasable and are a part of MP game dynamics. The important thing to remember is it is only a game and if you get shot down by a hostile clan then just laugh and call your clan mates to come to your aid, and the whole thing can be a bit of fun.

But let's avoid things like telling other clans to go play in another system because this is our system!

With regard to War Zones, i like Rush's idea that human missions against Vonari could influence the boundaries of war zones. With co-operative attacks we could push back the Vonari. And if there's not much human activity in a war zone the Vonari would retake territory.

Pelador · Post by **Pelador** » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:34 am

Actually Mccon, people put a lot of time an effort into maintain the influence in sectors. COnsidering I was only asking members of UE to be considerate with their actions and their was a viable alternative for their fun, I was suprised how much your clan member decided to "qq" about it. But hey ho, I suppose other peoples effort and fun in game can be easily despoiled in game cause you want your way.

Well I'm currently sick of the whole clan influence thing and lack of mechanics to effect any reasonable outcomes from clan politics anyway and it seems detriment to everyones fun. So hey nice idea have a clan ownership system, but it obviously aint working.

As a result for the time being considering the lack of consideration to this area, I've pretty much decided to not bother with my efforts towards clan control and policing it. Or PvP as it all seems pretty meaningless from the scheme of things.

So fill your boots as far as I'm concerned, I'll let people have their fun, I suppose I need to find another purpose in the game as this one just seems a waste of effort. And I'd prefer to have fun than worry about it.