Don't add EMPs, nothing but griefing tool
As the title suggests, EMPs are a terrible thing to add to this game. While I like to think Keen are well intentioned and don't mean any harm, what Keen intends and what people do aren't always the same thing. I'm granting that right now as I type this on the Sept 11th we have limited info on their implementation, however based on available info I stand by the statement they will be nothing but a griefing tool, especially if they can bypass safe zones. Because at that point safe zones may as well not even exist.
EMPs will not be used the way Keen thinks they will and will just be another tool for griefers to harass people. By nature of what they are, it becomes an instant "I win" button that harms another person's grid with little to no counter. First to get an EMP off gets an automatic win. There is no counter, there is no fighting back. It's just poof your grid is offline. Missiles at least can be dodged, fooled, or shot down. Armor and energy shields can be overwhelmed by constantly peppering them, and warheads have to be carried by something else or built on site. There are tangible ways to get around things like this. An EMP is just show up, push a button and poof.
EMPs fall into the same category as Jump Inhibitors that allow an instant "I win" purely by their nature and their existence. It's just instant uncounterable win-con. Press a button, you get your "I win" effect and will be used to troll people just like Jump Inhibitors would be. No person should have that kind of power in a game like this and it just encourages toxic behavior among the playerbase.
"But it's a Factorum weapon meaning it will be rare.": So what, it's still an instant "I win" and a grifer's wet dream tool. I don't trust anyone with that kind of power.
"But EMPs are a real weapon.": Simply because it's a real world thing doesn't automatically mean it needs to be added to the game. There's plenty of real world forces and things that could be added to game, but they don't make for fun or engaging game mechanics. Ammo racking can happen in reality, but it's a crap mechanic in a video game. G-lock is a real world thing that can cause a pilot to pass out and crash, but it's a crap mechanic to have in a video game. Games should be fun first, realism second. If folks want a hyper-realistic game, SE has never been the game for that.
"real warfare isn't supposed to be fair.": Except this isn't a real life war we're talking about, but a video game combat system. If I wanted an unbalanced nightmare I would go play CoD or some similar game. IRL yes, you don't want it to be fair and you want it to be as unbalanced in possible in favor of your team because people can actually get killed. Except again, we're not dealing with that here. This is fictional combat in a fictional game meant to be fun. If folks want hyper-realistic stuff there are better games than SE for that.
If they are hell-bent on adding EMPs, they need to be off by default though it would be better if they just didn't add them at all. Again an energy shield can be overwhelmed just like stronger armor, missiles can be dodged or shot down or confused, and similar. Even Jump Detection doesn't give you an automatic "I win" on its own. You still need to plan your next moves and how to best use that info. EMPs require no planning, you just press a button and poof.
The only possible saving grace is if they were like Ion Turrets from Star Wars where you could see them coming, dodge the bolts, and similar. Even then for a game like SE I still maintain they would be OP but at least in that form there's SOME measure of counterplay there.
I'm willing to hear Keen out on their implementation ONLY because it's Keen. However based off what we have now at the time of drafting this, It's a big fat nope from me and something I will find a way to nullify on day one just like with ammo racking.
I like this feedback
Now that we have more info on these things I'm even more convinced it's not a good idea. maybe they will surprise me, but the new info dump a bit ago just created more questions than it answered.
So first, we know that they won't require frames which will make them stupid easy to get and make. Just grab a prototech refinery and assembler, keep up with farming and you can crank out an EMP drone swarm. Because let's be real, no one is going to risk their main ship on the EMP if they can just sit back and swarm, we all know it. Sit back, swarm, and roll in when they're disabled.
Saying "just cycle your power off before you get hit" is not a valid answer or defense on its own and just forces you to do what the EMP player wants anyways, turn off your power. That is not good or intuitive gameplay. That's artificially putting your thumb on the balancing scale. Even in real life you can harden your equipment against electronic warfare. Is it ever 100% perfect, maybe not. But leaving it 100% vulnerable with little to no defense other than "don't get hit" or "just cycle your power" is not balanced or good gameplay. "just don't get hit" can be said about anything in the game and is an infinitely recyclable argument and as such is not valid on its own.
There are 4 major questions that need to be answered still that will determine whether it's even close to balanced or not. The 4 big questions are as follows.
1: what is the mag range of the EMP? too large and it's definitely an instant "i win" with no debate. doesn't seem to be super huge based off the teaser, but it does seem to have a healthier range.
2: how much of the grid has to be caught in the blast to disable the entire thing? as in if I have a single thruster that gets caught, does it just turn off that single thruster or the entire grid. If it only needs to tap a single block, then this can drastically increase the range of the EMP effect by proxy.
3: can it be pre-emptively charged and hold charge like a jump drive to go poof later, or is it press button wait 3 minutes then poof no matter what? If they can be charged pre-emptively then this absolutely means drone spam is an intentional thing.
4: are there other defenses aside from "just turn the power off briefly"? can I keep a single battery offline or reactor for backup then swap back and forth as needed for emergency power? Or as another example. Let's supposed I have 4 reactors on a ship with 3 of them always online and the 4th as a backup. Can I leave reactor 4 off, then swap over to reactor 4 when I get hit? Or does the EMP prevent reactor 4 from starting at all?
Because the answer of balance and whether it can be balanced hinges on their answers to those questions. I would love for my concerns to be overblown, I really would. But I have to go with the info I have and not what I want. So far everything I'm seeing says this will be a terrible idea and addition to the game. At the very least making it an opt in would alleviate some of the more critical concerns as folks opting in means they're acknowledging the risks like with supergridding, lightning damage and so forth.
Now that we have more info on these things I'm even more convinced it's not a good idea. maybe they will surprise me, but the new info dump a bit ago just created more questions than it answered.
So first, we know that they won't require frames which will make them stupid easy to get and make. Just grab a prototech refinery and assembler, keep up with farming and you can crank out an EMP drone swarm. Because let's be real, no one is going to risk their main ship on the EMP if they can just sit back and swarm, we all know it. Sit back, swarm, and roll in when they're disabled.
Saying "just cycle your power off before you get hit" is not a valid answer or defense on its own and just forces you to do what the EMP player wants anyways, turn off your power. That is not good or intuitive gameplay. That's artificially putting your thumb on the balancing scale. Even in real life you can harden your equipment against electronic warfare. Is it ever 100% perfect, maybe not. But leaving it 100% vulnerable with little to no defense other than "don't get hit" or "just cycle your power" is not balanced or good gameplay. "just don't get hit" can be said about anything in the game and is an infinitely recyclable argument and as such is not valid on its own.
There are 4 major questions that need to be answered still that will determine whether it's even close to balanced or not. The 4 big questions are as follows.
1: what is the mag range of the EMP? too large and it's definitely an instant "i win" with no debate. doesn't seem to be super huge based off the teaser, but it does seem to have a healthier range.
2: how much of the grid has to be caught in the blast to disable the entire thing? as in if I have a single thruster that gets caught, does it just turn off that single thruster or the entire grid. If it only needs to tap a single block, then this can drastically increase the range of the EMP effect by proxy.
3: can it be pre-emptively charged and hold charge like a jump drive to go poof later, or is it press button wait 3 minutes then poof no matter what? If they can be charged pre-emptively then this absolutely means drone spam is an intentional thing.
4: are there other defenses aside from "just turn the power off briefly"? can I keep a single battery offline or reactor for backup then swap back and forth as needed for emergency power? Or as another example. Let's supposed I have 4 reactors on a ship with 3 of them always online and the 4th as a backup. Can I leave reactor 4 off, then swap over to reactor 4 when I get hit? Or does the EMP prevent reactor 4 from starting at all?
Because the answer of balance and whether it can be balanced hinges on their answers to those questions. I would love for my concerns to be overblown, I really would. But I have to go with the info I have and not what I want. So far everything I'm seeing says this will be a terrible idea and addition to the game. At the very least making it an opt in would alleviate some of the more critical concerns as folks opting in means they're acknowledging the risks like with supergridding, lightning damage and so forth.
Should've added this at the time but, another thing for folks to consider. If you think the railgun meta is toxic, EMPs open the door for an even more toxic meta. All you will see is EMP drones rolling in disabling everything, then your opponents roll in and steamroll you and you don't even get to fight back. That is not balanced at all. Do folks really want to replace one toxic meta with another? because that's what you will get with EMPs.
Should've added this at the time but, another thing for folks to consider. If you think the railgun meta is toxic, EMPs open the door for an even more toxic meta. All you will see is EMP drones rolling in disabling everything, then your opponents roll in and steamroll you and you don't even get to fight back. That is not balanced at all. Do folks really want to replace one toxic meta with another? because that's what you will get with EMPs.
Do it, implement the EPM so this whiny snowflakes have something to cry about.
I hope it can turn off people's safezones.
I hope it can fry players hiding in a safe zone.
Do it, implement the EPM so this whiny snowflakes have something to cry about.
I hope it can turn off people's safezones.
I hope it can fry players hiding in a safe zone.
If the idea behind EMP is to trap an enemy from escaping with a jump drive, then yeah, I don't like it either. A much better approach would be "nerfing" it in a way that it requires you not accelerate in order to jump.
If the idea behind EMP is to trap an enemy from escaping with a jump drive, then yeah, I don't like it either. A much better approach would be "nerfing" it in a way that it requires you not accelerate in order to jump.
The “I win button” is a good idea actually. I really hope we can disable safe zones and stop players from jumping as I’m shooting them. They can’t get away and they lose the ship. Or I follow their jump, EMP blast, disable their ship, safe zone and blow up everything they own ☠🔥🤞.
The “I win button” is a good idea actually. I really hope we can disable safe zones and stop players from jumping as I’m shooting them. They can’t get away and they lose the ship. Or I follow their jump, EMP blast, disable their ship, safe zone and blow up everything they own ☠🔥🤞.
I think that there might be a tool to stop adversary from jumping away once they decide to engage in the battle. We shall yet to see how jump detection works. It might be useful for pursuing a fleeing enemy. On the other hand, it can force people to move farther away from each other on the servers beyond the detection range.
There has to be something in the game that incentivizes cooperation between factions (not only between the same faction members). Planets and moons might have some unique resources or unique random encounters where you can obtaine items you cannot find elsewhere. There has to be something valuable you must go to enemy territory to obtain either by trade or war. And deep space should be less desirable: less asteroid density, no economy stations, lack of rare resources and items. There might be occasional asteroid clusters though, not too far away from planets anyway, very hard to find but having some of the rare material or spawning specific random encounters or Factorum bases. Speaking of Factorum encounters, they might be closer to planets too, not 10-20k away from any of them. The easier one can spawn pretty close to planets while the harder ones are 1–3 k away. In other words, we need more POIs (points of interest) where players can naturally intersect in a multiplay world. Factorum encounters are just one, we need much more.
I think that there might be a tool to stop adversary from jumping away once they decide to engage in the battle. We shall yet to see how jump detection works. It might be useful for pursuing a fleeing enemy. On the other hand, it can force people to move farther away from each other on the servers beyond the detection range.
There has to be something in the game that incentivizes cooperation between factions (not only between the same faction members). Planets and moons might have some unique resources or unique random encounters where you can obtaine items you cannot find elsewhere. There has to be something valuable you must go to enemy territory to obtain either by trade or war. And deep space should be less desirable: less asteroid density, no economy stations, lack of rare resources and items. There might be occasional asteroid clusters though, not too far away from planets anyway, very hard to find but having some of the rare material or spawning specific random encounters or Factorum bases. Speaking of Factorum encounters, they might be closer to planets too, not 10-20k away from any of them. The easier one can spawn pretty close to planets while the harder ones are 1–3 k away. In other words, we need more POIs (points of interest) where players can naturally intersect in a multiplay world. Factorum encounters are just one, we need much more.
Now that we have more info on these things I'm even more convinced it's not a good idea. maybe they will surprise me, but the new info dump a bit ago just created more questions than it answered.
So first, we know that they won't require frames which will make them stupid easy to get and make. Just grab a prototech refinery and assembler, keep up with farming and you can crank out an EMP drone swarm. Because let's be real, no one is going to risk their main ship on the EMP if they can just sit back and swarm, we all know it. Sit back, swarm, and roll in when they're disabled.
Saying "just cycle your power off before you get hit" is not a valid answer or defense on its own and just forces you to do what the EMP player wants anyways, turn off your power. That is not good or intuitive gameplay. That's artificially putting your thumb on the balancing scale. Even in real life you can harden your equipment against electronic warfare. Is it ever 100% perfect, maybe not. But leaving it 100% vulnerable with little to no defense other than "don't get hit" or "just cycle your power" is not balanced or good gameplay. "just don't get hit" can be said about anything in the game and is an infinitely recyclable argument and as such is not valid on its own.
There are 4 major questions that need to be answered still that will determine whether it's even close to balanced or not. The 4 big questions are as follows.
1: what is the mag range of the EMP? too large and it's definitely an instant "i win" with no debate. doesn't seem to be super huge based off the teaser, but it does seem to have a healthier range.
2: how much of the grid has to be caught in the blast to disable the entire thing? as in if I have a single thruster that gets caught, does it just turn off that single thruster or the entire grid. If it only needs to tap a single block, then this can drastically increase the range of the EMP effect by proxy.
3: can it be pre-emptively charged and hold charge like a jump drive to go poof later, or is it press button wait 3 minutes then poof no matter what? If they can be charged pre-emptively then this absolutely means drone spam is an intentional thing.
4: are there other defenses aside from "just turn the power off briefly"? can I keep a single battery offline or reactor for backup then swap back and forth as needed for emergency power? Or as another example. Let's supposed I have 4 reactors on a ship with 3 of them always online and the 4th as a backup. Can I leave reactor 4 off, then swap over to reactor 4 when I get hit? Or does the EMP prevent reactor 4 from starting at all?
Because the answer of balance and whether it can be balanced hinges on their answers to those questions. I would love for my concerns to be overblown, I really would. But I have to go with the info I have and not what I want. So far everything I'm seeing says this will be a terrible idea and addition to the game. At the very least making it an opt in would alleviate some of the more critical concerns as folks opting in means they're acknowledging the risks like with supergridding, lightning damage and so forth.
Now that we have more info on these things I'm even more convinced it's not a good idea. maybe they will surprise me, but the new info dump a bit ago just created more questions than it answered.
So first, we know that they won't require frames which will make them stupid easy to get and make. Just grab a prototech refinery and assembler, keep up with farming and you can crank out an EMP drone swarm. Because let's be real, no one is going to risk their main ship on the EMP if they can just sit back and swarm, we all know it. Sit back, swarm, and roll in when they're disabled.
Saying "just cycle your power off before you get hit" is not a valid answer or defense on its own and just forces you to do what the EMP player wants anyways, turn off your power. That is not good or intuitive gameplay. That's artificially putting your thumb on the balancing scale. Even in real life you can harden your equipment against electronic warfare. Is it ever 100% perfect, maybe not. But leaving it 100% vulnerable with little to no defense other than "don't get hit" or "just cycle your power" is not balanced or good gameplay. "just don't get hit" can be said about anything in the game and is an infinitely recyclable argument and as such is not valid on its own.
There are 4 major questions that need to be answered still that will determine whether it's even close to balanced or not. The 4 big questions are as follows.
1: what is the mag range of the EMP? too large and it's definitely an instant "i win" with no debate. doesn't seem to be super huge based off the teaser, but it does seem to have a healthier range.
2: how much of the grid has to be caught in the blast to disable the entire thing? as in if I have a single thruster that gets caught, does it just turn off that single thruster or the entire grid. If it only needs to tap a single block, then this can drastically increase the range of the EMP effect by proxy.
3: can it be pre-emptively charged and hold charge like a jump drive to go poof later, or is it press button wait 3 minutes then poof no matter what? If they can be charged pre-emptively then this absolutely means drone spam is an intentional thing.
4: are there other defenses aside from "just turn the power off briefly"? can I keep a single battery offline or reactor for backup then swap back and forth as needed for emergency power? Or as another example. Let's supposed I have 4 reactors on a ship with 3 of them always online and the 4th as a backup. Can I leave reactor 4 off, then swap over to reactor 4 when I get hit? Or does the EMP prevent reactor 4 from starting at all?
Because the answer of balance and whether it can be balanced hinges on their answers to those questions. I would love for my concerns to be overblown, I really would. But I have to go with the info I have and not what I want. So far everything I'm seeing says this will be a terrible idea and addition to the game. At the very least making it an opt in would alleviate some of the more critical concerns as folks opting in means they're acknowledging the risks like with supergridding, lightning damage and so forth.
Replies have been locked on this page!