After wrecking havoc on a surface installation with nothing but a half complete python and a new player in an srv, I put some thought into whether or not a stations defenses were as susceptible to player based action. After some consulting it turns out that no stations are like bedrock and you fly a paper airplane. I want to see stations have a more interactive feel (I.e. More realistic) by making at least the anti-ship defenses destructible. I think it would add a neat element to the game as well if the station were to be attacked by enough players (and thus take enough damage to be in danger) that a Farragut class would warp in to assist. I just find it odd personally that almost everything from Farraguts to surface installations to certain types of rock on planets and even the Thargoids themselves have some way of being broken or damaged yet a coriolis station for example (which should be tough I understand that) is just straight up invincible. Maybe making stations similar to Farraguts in that they are indestructible but you can at least get it to limp would make them more realistic? Open for ideas on how to balance this feature. I feel like making stations less than invincible would add opportunities like more CG’s or even missions involving damaging a station that is controlled by an enemy faction etc. it also makes criminally controlled stations possible with a reward for hitting it available as well. Just my two cents. Source: a conversation that got way out of hand.
Less Than Invincible Stations
- Thread starter alphakomodo
- Start date
I think it was considered once to make stations vulnerable to player attack, but human nature being human nature you would end up with a galaxy full of destroyed stations, so the idea was abandoned. I think maybe having a few stations for people to fight over might work however.
