Weren't thinking machines banned after the Butlerian Jihad?
Slavery and Cyborgs - Fleet carriers as battlefields (raids)
- Thread starter Marcus Bronco
- Start date
That's still some millenia further down the timeline.
Interesting ideas, thanks for sharingYou can work around the problem in two ways.
1) Attacks/raids only by NPCs. And FC owners get an alert 1hr before the attack (your NPCs intercepted chatter) and jumping FC out of system prevents the attacks.
2) Attacks only happen when pilot is in Open. Also, add on a "distress beacon" in the menu that lets the FC owner alert any pilot within 5ly of the carrier. Pilots landed on the defending carrier can join the crew to fight off the invaders, in exchange for a reward preset by the FC owner. Y'all have billions, surely you can spare a mill for defense purposes. Pilots need to eat
too.
Other game I know has a time window for attacks, set by the owner of the vessel to be raided. So if that happens, he is available for defense. It's the attackers in that concept who have to adjust.You can work around the problem in two ways.
1) Attacks/raids only by NPCs. And FC owners get an alert 1hr before the attack (your NPCs intercepted chatter) and jumping FC out of system prevents the attacks.
2) Attacks only happen when pilot is in Open. Also, add on a "distress beacon" in the menu that lets the FC owner alert any pilot within 5ly of the carrier. Pilots landed on the defending carrier can join the crew to fight off the invaders, in exchange for a reward preset by the FC owner. Y'all have billions, surely you can spare a mill for defense purposes. Pilots need to eat
we can be up to 65,000ly from the bubble an attack window works if someone can trivially be there for every window but this doesn't work with the game's scale and travel mechanics.
Wait this does defeat the whole realism and immersion, this would fit well into a CRPG experience Medieval mature player popuilated server with Mount & Blade Bannerlord II, something "Persistent Bannerlord" for example never managed to have due to the players lack of interest for simulation and immersion and just arcade.
But in ED you have "no rules" potentially, so a system should actually be contextually aligned with it and I explained the way that by design the player will be able to prevent any negative outcome just by buiying the highest level of defense available every month there will be a money collection for such security and as I said it could be NPC involving, but also player potentially could join not only the attack buyt the very defense, by getting alerted if the ship they vowed to defend is being attacked...
This creates connections between players and potential contacts and friendships or merely profesional cooperations.
As said again and again the design would allow for the ship owner that pays an actual external, internal and harware-type of defense (3 layers) that cannot be trepassed).
And if one goes for the sabotage entry accessing via stealth etc.. it would still meet the very strong in ship protection.
Defense again if not understood is NPC, it's not players mainly as it is payed and it's an automatic server.
It's up to the assaulter to realize if x or y FC is equipped with what and which one is breachable...
Just to make it clear, I am against Solo and Private play, I do need a game to be meaninful, interacting with anyobody, I do not fear interaction with different people, there is nothing to fear, I do not seek power fatnasy in game nor a comfort zone. And again I provided Ideas from the first post people don't read or the following ones that do already solve these non issues raised.
But in ED you have "no rules" potentially, so a system should actually be contextually aligned with it and I explained the way that by design the player will be able to prevent any negative outcome just by buiying the highest level of defense available every month there will be a money collection for such security and as I said it could be NPC involving, but also player potentially could join not only the attack buyt the very defense, by getting alerted if the ship they vowed to defend is being attacked...
This creates connections between players and potential contacts and friendships or merely profesional cooperations.
As said again and again the design would allow for the ship owner that pays an actual external, internal and harware-type of defense (3 layers) that cannot be trepassed).
And if one goes for the sabotage entry accessing via stealth etc.. it would still meet the very strong in ship protection.
Defense again if not understood is NPC, it's not players mainly as it is payed and it's an automatic server.
It's up to the assaulter to realize if x or y FC is equipped with what and which one is breachable...
Just to make it clear, I am against Solo and Private play, I do need a game to be meaninful, interacting with anyobody, I do not fear interaction with different people, there is nothing to fear, I do not seek power fatnasy in game nor a comfort zone. And again I provided Ideas from the first post people don't read or the following ones that do already solve these non issues raised.
Just to be clear in my and probably many other peoples point of view one of the strengths of ED is the choice to be able to play Solo, Private or Open.
Ideas that reduce or remove that choice may be good on a mechanical level but reducing that choice of how to play is a real issue and so they are a detriment to the game as a whole.
I want a game to be interesting and enjoyable whether there is someone to interact with or not.
Ideas that reduce or remove that choice may be good on a mechanical level but reducing that choice of how to play is a real issue and so they are a detriment to the game as a whole.
I want a game to be interesting and enjoyable whether there is someone to interact with or not.
Where is the benefit to the carrier owners all I see is a mechanic where the carrier owners get an extra tax and there's no benefit to them. Someone else gets to go raid a carrier but the guy you want to pay for security gets nothing but an even higher maintenance bill. This at the moment seem to be a game loop which only benefits the attacker and the options for the defender aka carrier owner are all negative. The idea could work but you need to go back to the drawing board and find some positive interaction for the carrier owners because right now this doesn't sound good and would be better replaced with the addition of on foot content for NPC megaships and planetary hubs.