AI targetting jammer

I am still looking for ways to give the little guy a chance against the odds, be it only temporary or as a last ditch effort in battle.

E-war is a cool feature, and a radar-jammer would be an interesting item, though radar-jamming is about as stealthy as a flash-bang, you aren't sneaky, they're just temporarily blind.

That said I find that big guy vs little guy fights in SE1 pvp are often very much literal, with the big guy flying enough heavy-armor around to just sumo the little-guy in to scrap and barely notice the resulting dent in the armor. Of course some big-guys may opt for missile-swarms as their primary weapon, but in the end we have the same issue, a substantial disparity in combat-resources. E-war doesn't fix this, both sides will use it, the larger ship will spend proportionately less of the hull-space it would have used for weapons on it, and the results will typically be the same.

Sadly balancing big vs small fights in SE is extremely difficult thanks to how the math of scale interacts with SE's extremely plentiful resources and near limitless customization. You either work things favoring offense, making smalls king and pvp a short game of rocket-tag, because if anything dies in a few solid hits then why not only use stuff that is already paper, or you work things favoring defense, making larges king with longer fights of epic broadsides and then work to keep smalls from being totally irrelevant.

As is, I think SE already has the balance about right there, fights aren't so short as to be boring and well-designed smalls can still inflict meaningful damage when either used by a skilled pilot or in numbers. The only thing I think they really need is a bump to the top-speed of smalls (not acceleration, just top speed they can reach) and possibly h2 storage so that people that aren't skilled small pilots still see a use in them aside from efficiency and the 3 Factorum sites you meant to loot with them.

It is not always about direct combat, it could be that a small fighter is a diversion for getting a hydroman in close and jamming automated weapons temporarily could really help.

... I think everyone here thought your AI-jammer was just jamming the AI blocks, and not any and all things that use AI.

Infinitely respawning grinder monkeys are a blight on the game, and while the idea of boarding-parties taking a ship in a pitched battle is cool, 99.99% of the time what you actually get is someone that could fight instead choosing to risk nothing and throwing infinite suits at an offline or otherwise undefended target.

E-war is cool, stealth and misdirection are cool, letting grinder-monkeys just turn all your turrets off before they offline-raid you is not. It may not be what you intended of the feature, but it is what you have inadvertently suggested, and you are unlikely to get support for it.

I am only thinking of stopping the AI targetting on turrets.

Ok... so exactly as I just explained? Someone logs out, then a grinder-monkey uses this and shuts all the logged-out player's turrets off, after which said grinder-monkey steals all the logged-out player's stuff effectively unopposed...

I get that you're expecting the use of an NPC crew-feature as a counter to this, but assuming you can even hire an npc crew in multiplayer, and assuming people even want to interact with the requisite "be an HR-manager for a procedural npc crew" mini-game, crews require a lot of space that simply can't work for a lot of designs. It wouldn't help the "little guys", it would hand them over on a platter for not being big enough.

If you really want to help smaller builds against larger targets, I'd advise instead working out some manner of accuracy-disruptor that reduces the accuracy of turrets. People could still land hits if they get close (or if the target was large), so it wouldn't just be an instant lose/win device when people are light on fixed weapons or internal-space for extra crew.

So if the jammer worked for a 20 second period and then took an hour to recharge, would that make a difference?

Is there a heavy PVP bias over PVE?

"So if the jammer worked for a 20 second period and then took an hour to recharge, would that make a difference?"

-It would be a step in the right direction, though I might question how you'll subsequently stop people from fitting 100 of them and using a script or timers to keep a target's turrets offline for longer.

"Is there a heavy PVP bias over PVE?"

-PvE suffers significantly fewer such problems from this type of equipment than are encountered in PvP because games typically don't simulate random NPCs attacking you while you are offline.

I think that there are several ways to limit block spam. I am toying with ideas relating to block combos, where a blocks proximity to another block could have an impact on function, like interference and stability effect or emergent function. In terms of SE1 the easiest solution would be to use a rare and costly consumable for the block to function similar to a zone chip but with a use once only capacity.

So, after re-reading things with a bit more sleep than usual...

Short-range (perhaps 300-400m in SE1 ranges), expensive components, and high power-draw would be adequate to balance such a device under normal circumstances. Unfortunately the issue with offline raiding persists, and I don't know that it can be solved without other significant changes to the game that would also severely limit or entirely prevent any offline raids.

To be clear, I'm in favor of stopping offline-raiding, but it would need to be done carefully to avoid creating something overly exploitable (SE1 safe-zones get abused all the time if the admins aren't paying attention)...

...If this didn't work on static constructs (or anything docked to one), and we had the Long-Term Parking feature (here: https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/46462-npc-station-long-term-parkingstorage ) as a way to protect dynamic constructs belonging to offline players, then with short-range, high-power-draw, and expensive components I think this would be a good and adequately balanced feature.

There have been many ideas that have been proposed for SE2 and are in the air in terms of SE1 gameplay.

Those ideas on their own may not stand up to your tests, but when ideas are combined they will create a new functioning balanced game.

To reject an idea without thinking how you could make it work is to not want a new game.

I am sure that it is possible to make new things work if enough thought from many minds is applied.

This will not be the case with all things, but a little imagination can make for fun things to be realised.

Just a thought, may be having an NPC crew might help on a solo ship.

Would choosing options D,H and C be better than choosing option K?

Decoys are effective on stations, but not much on moving targets, and not well against rail guns.

@Deon: Respectfully, sometimes one can reject ideas because they're just plain bad idea, and/or not thought out enough. I do not owe any idea consideration on how to make it work at all as no idea is entitled to automatic support, or automatic criticism.

Now that said I reject this idea completely because jamming the AI outright straight up means that solo players would be restricted to static weapons only and could NEVER have automated defenses of any kind. It gives an instant "i win" button to group players in its current proposed form. In other words if Johnny 2x4 and his pal little Timmy come to a battle with a ship using 10 turrets, and Little Suzie brings her ship with 10 turrets and this weapon gets used, Suzie now has to choose between piloting her ship and praying one of her weapons got frozen in a good position to still actually work. Where as either Timmy or Johnny just has to hop in a gun control chair and there you go.

And no choosing options D H and C would not change my thoughts as it's still an instant "I win" button for group players, only now in single use form like a one cup coffee creamer or something. You can use any of those downsides you want to use, the issue is with the core concept of what you're proposing. And by all means feel free to propose things as that's never been my issue. The issue in this instance is you're basically proposing an "I win" button for group players vs solo players.

As for my own personal tests I'm looking at this from 2 perspectives, one being a player such as yourself or anyone else from the community. And 2 is looking at it from my experience developing content for other games that I've done for over 20 years. While I will never claim to know everything about SE (or any game unless I made it), I know enough to tell you that an idea like this would not be healthy for the game as it allows you to harm another's grid purely by said jammer existing, and with no way to prevent it.

Lastly, I must firmly disagree on decoys not being effective on moving targets. Decoys themselves aren't meant to be 100% effective anyways. Even if all they direct away or soak up is say 45% of the incoming shots, that's still less damage going towards critical systems. Weapons aren't going to perfect on moving targets anyways as you have to learn to fire where they're going to be and not where they are currently. As for railguns, they have no turret form in vanilla and the job of decoys is to distract enemy turrets. Decoys don't work as well against the static railguns because there's no overall AI or "brain" to distract. Lastly for decoys they also need to be placed in strategic locations too.

Anyways to conclude I think any "I win" type of feature that can harm another's grid purely by existing and with no counter (warheads excluded) purely by existing is a bad design.

Now if you want a "targeting computer" of sorts that can try to reduce the effectiveness of decoys that are close enough, then sure by all means. Then at that point it's an arms race of decoy power vs targeting computer power.

So you would like an autopilot to free the player to use a turret and an NPC character to man the second gun to even the odds?

As for helping the process, you are already doing that.

You could use option J as a counter if you really want a counter to the Jammer.

There are no instant wins and no certainty, only stats.

If you are trying to put yourself in another's shoes then know that there are many shoe sizes and some will not fit you. It is impossible to know how every player feels about something unless they tell you and not everyone will be upfront with that too.

Decoys do not stop bullets from firing, and stray bullets can still do damage. There are more stray shots with moving targets.

As for an arms race, tech trees are always arms races.

SE has been an ever evolving game, things are tried, changed, then new things are added again. This is good, as the game playing experience has more to offer with each iteration. Some things work, some do not, and some are adjusted to give balance. Not everything is clear cut when introducing these elements, but with a positive attitude things will be created, improved and become standard. Even your doubts and reservations have a place in making this possible.

@Deon: You're misunderstanding what I'm saying in several places.

"So you would like an autopilot to free the player to use a turret and an NPC character to man the second gun to even the odds?"

No I'm saying I don't want this at all nor will alot of other people because it gives an instant "I win" to group players since they would be able to control their guns directly and it renders any turret weapon useless with the push of a button and thus is bad game design.

"There are no instant wins and no certainty, only stats."

Objectively false. There are absolutely instant "I win" conditions that can happen. There are also blocks that are so overpowered by their very nature they guarantee a win, or make it next to impossible to lose purely by existing, and even potentially open up abuses among the playerbase. Case and point Jump Inhibitors which are nothing but a ganker's wet dream so they can force unwanted pvp on anyone at the drop of a hat. You know as well as I do that thing would never be used on anyone who had a chance of fighting back but would be used purely by people wanting to be clowns and camp less established people. Likewise this jammer you're proposing would face the same abuses. It would NEVER be used on people who could fight back, but would be used to abuse those who couldn't.

The problem is that blocks like this serve only one purpose which is to give one side a handicap in their favor. With things like shields, stronger armor, or even custom weapons, they do not harm another's build purely by existing nor do they automatically guarantee you a win. With shields or stronger armor, you need to do the engineering to properly support them and make the best use of them, especially since shields need power. With custom weapons, you need to do the engineering to place them in the best spots to defend your grid, but also need to do direct those weapons too. Shields and stronger armor can be breached and overpowered. Weapons can usually be dodged or deflected. If they're not dodged there are ways you can reduce their effectiveness such as by using shields or stronger armor, and also based on how you build your ship and place things. Point being there are counters in place and ways around things.

With things like Jump Inhibitors and jammers like this, there are no counters to them, and there is no input or engineering required. They simply need to be present and you need to push a button, and you get instant effect that allows you to either turn off your opponent's jump drives, or in this case turn off their turrets. That is so overpowered it's not even funny and would only be used to grief. When you can harm another's grid purely by something existing with the other side having no counter at all, that's going too far.

"If you are trying to put yourself in another's shoes then know that there are many shoe sizes and some will not fit you. It is impossible to know how every player feels about something unless they tell you and not everyone will be upfront with that too."

I don't need to know how every single individual in the community feels to know that they won't like certain stuff and will think something is a bad idea. We can look at past similar examples of community reaction to get an idea, along with similar features in similar games. Now I will grant that metric isn't always perfect, but it's accurate more often than not. If every single time the SE community has shot down certain suggestions, such as Jump Inhibitors, I don't need to go around polling everyone to know that another suggestion for inhibitors would suddenly be accepted. When it comes to vanilla SE, most of the community does not want something being added to the game simply by it existing and never has. If someone wants to make a jammer mod of some kind and use that, the community never really cared. However most folks do not want that sort of thing in the vanilla game because again it's a griefer's wet dream. I use the inhibitor example because it's one such thing that most people do not want and this is essentially the same thing you're proposing, save specifically for turrets instead of jump drives.

"Decoys do not stop bullets from firing, and stray bullets can still do damage. There are more stray shots with moving targets.

Never once claimed they stopped bullets from firing. Only pointed out that if one wishes to confuse a turret, decoys are one of the best ways to do it. Also even with decoys they're not meant to be 100% effective. They're meant to mitigate some fire by draw that fire towards itself vs other parts of the ship. All they do is try to confuse the turret on where something is, they don't outright stop them from working. What you're proposing on the other hand would completely stop turrets from functioning at all. Respectfully, if you can't or won't see the difference between those 2 then there's nothing I can do to help you, nor can anyone else.

"SE has been an ever evolving game, things are tried, changed, then new things are added again. This is good, as the game playing experience has more to offer with each iteration. Some things work, some do not, and some are adjusted to give balance. Not everything is clear cut when introducing these elements, but with a positive attitude things will be created, improved and become standard. Even your doubts and reservations have a place in making this possible."

The bolded sections here get to the heart of the issue. There's nothing wrong with trying new things first off. The issue here though is jammers like this proposal aren't new, and time and again have been shot down by the community at large because they don't work either mechanically, gameplay wise, or both. Jammers like this are one such example of something that just doesn't work. And we have a healthy amount of data to show that they don't. Something that can harm another's build purely by existing is NOT an improvement in any way to the game, but a detriment. Nor should such things that busted ever become standard because we know they don't work.

Do you have a link to examples of historical conversations on SE about this that I could read?

(not redditox please)

I noticed that Splitsie made a whole series that included the use of Inhibitor tech.

@Deon: Your best bet is pulling some of the old stuff from the wayback machine on the old Keen forums and checking old stuff out on the keen discord. The people who like inhibitor tech are by far outnumbered by those who don't.

Thank you.

There are two or three big problems in the whole SE game, stemming from the game mechanics:

- the problem of game world dimensions - the game world is very small, the distances in the game world are very small.

- The problem of the speed limit

- the problem of energy availability - energy for the player's creations is in great surplus, and is all too readily available in huge quantities

The consequence is that it is all too easy to find and attack other players and destroy their structures.

Add to this the practical in-game immortality (quick avatar recovery), and you get a situation ideal for aggressive individuals - attacking another player is virtually risk-free for the aggressor.

How to solve this problem - I don't know. The game mechanics itself doesn't seem to allow it, and mechanisms at the level of game worlds administration would be needed.

I am not sure if this is a radar issue, radar is one approach. I was thinking about preying on the sensitivities of the AI targeting circuitry, not quite an EMP, but enough electronic noise interference to disrupt normal processing. Assuming that the targetting system would have some exploit in its imagined nature that could be targetted and not effect other systems by the same measure.

SE the game.

In terms of resource availability, SE has it right for single players starting the game. I do not have much experience on multiplayer, but I do see your point. There is a critical stage in survival gameplay where the player has achieved resource, military and installation abundance. Then comes the idea of what shall I do next, dominate or beautify the world. Many sci-fi comics, novels and animes have gone into great depths of the many possibilities.

In terms of immortality, I have tried to have this conversation on the SE1 forum supporting the idea of cost for respawn. There are many both for and against this. As SE offers many gameplay styles, players will defend their corner and will not always see the added benefits of new gameplay options.

The die to teleport does appear to be a problem.

I think that having NPC characters will make many of these issues feel less important and bring new ones to the table.

Operating within an empire/colony structure may bring some sense to player faction co-operation, but probably only a little.

If there are no portable jump drives would that solve some of the issues?

Another issue is being able to see voxel deformation at a distance, although this can be helpful to the single player, it is a complete give away in adversarial multiplayer.

With "immortality" or fast respawn it's a bit of a vicious circle.

On the one hand, this is necessary because the engineer usually works alone and often in remote locations, far from his home base. And quite often he dies in various accidents and crashes. Especially beginners.

On the other hand, fast respawn reduces the aggressor's sense of risk when attacking another player.

This is actually what captainbladej52 is talking/writing about.

I really have no idea how to solve the problem of aggression and unwanted PvP - other than with an "admin" solution.

For example - the normal condition is that a player's avatar and grid cannot be damaged by another player or NPC or by another player's or NPC's grid (meaning a player of a different faction or no affiliation).

A PvP "state of war" or "faction vs faction" must be "officially" declared and "officially" confirmed by the other side.

A "state of war" declaration is valid for a limited time and will automatically expire if not extended or confirmed.

A "State of War" begins X minutes (10-30) after mutual confirmation. (to prevent unexpected attacks.)

A "State of War" lasts for a limited time (system set or agreed upon). Continuation of "State of War" must be mutually confirmed before the time limit expires.

Three problems arise here:

- "hostile" NPC factions

- "pirates" (active ships)

- wrecks (inactive ships and stations/bases)

Enemy NPC factions should behave similarly to player factions (central AI control)

"Pirates" (I think they are logical nonsense) should be individual ships, or small groups of ships, with no communication between ships or groups. They are automatically in a permanent state of war with all other ships, bases and factions.

Wrecks are "inactive" ships and stations. They are always individual, do not belong to any faction, and do not form a faction (do not communicate with each other). They are automatically in a permanent state of war with all other ships, bases and factions, but due to lack of energy they do not fight or have very limited combat capabilities (grid can be damaged/dismantled or captured).

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Long term abandoned facilities (grids) created by players are quite a big problem.

On the one hand, it is unacceptable for other players or NPCs to damage or occupy someone else's grid when the owner is not present in the game world; on the other hand, there is bound to be a group that fills the game world with pointless structures that serve only to obstruct other players.

There should be some sort of "grace period" for the grid, similar to the inactive player grid. This protection period should be long enough to cover several days of player inactivity on the game server. It should also be possible to "preserve" the grid for a longer period (within reasonable limits and server capabilities).

After the "preservation period" expires, the grid should be turned into a "wreck" - an inactive or limited active grid with no owner.

The owner should be able to take back ownership of the grid in a simpler way than other players (aka "knows access passwords and codes" - this may also be the real necessary -> PIN for the grid).

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Sorry, I got off the original topic.

PvP can be very cut-throat, and unfortunately there are plenty of people who care less about the challenge and more about just ruining someone else to say "I win" and so are perfectly willing to throw infinite grinder-monkeys at an offline target. Putting a cooldown timer on respawns at any given survival-kit/medbay would significantly hinder the infinite-monkey strategy (depending on the cooldown time), but it wouldn't eliminate it entirely, and having this kind of e-war equipment would be beneficial to said monkeys.

As for stopping unwanted pvp... In the game Dual Universe people couldn't shoot near planets and couldn't ram (it would only damage the faster construct) to prevent planetary pvp, so those inclined to break the rules would try to break-check you in mid-air instead. So, people inclined to cause trouble will always try to find a loophole they can exploit, making preventing unwanted pvp absolutely something that requires an admin-solution.

On a relevant note: you'll notice Cap didn't seem to consider fixed weapons at all in their posts, or that his theoretical solo can still jump out, or any balance issues for that matter, and spoke of any who would ever use something like this as "griefers". Cap is very much a staunch PvE player, and we are plainly discussing something that would likely see the bulk of its use in PvP. Actual griefers would use this to be sure, but his definition of griefer is probably significantly broader than it should be, and you should probably take his "most/all of the community hates this idea" and "I have 20 years experience, this is the second worst idea ever" to just be "I don't like PvP and don't want to encourage people to attack me". Cap's personal opinion on this is just as valid as any other, but I do believe the EVE's ECM not causing everyone to just stop playing it when it was added back in 09' proves most people wont mind too much provided the admittingly difficult task of balancing the targeting-jammer is adequately dealt with.

Personally, I think if the jammer was expensive to build, power-hungry, short range, and didn't work on static constructs, and if dynamic constructs could be easily stored where they can't be attacked when the owner's offline (say by renting a parking-space in an invulnerable npc-station's blueprint-hanger), then it would probably be fine to have.

The main problem is the radars and optical detectors in the game work differently than in reality.

The consequence is that the oldest and simplest means of jamming - dipole reflectors and corner reflectors - cannot be used. The characteristics of the game engine make cloaking coatings - and cloaking in general - equally ineffective.

Distortion of the original voxels is always visible from a distance.

Difficulty of jammers - in reality, the design of jammers is simple, simpler than the design of the radars to be jammed. Jammers are also much cheaper than radars.

@Tael: I didn't mention the specific use of the proposed jammer being used by grinder monkeys to offline raid because I didn't see it relevant to the original convo at the time, though I will give you some credit here. You're correct that there are some people that simply want to ruin the game for others to "win" while claiming "but pvp" with it hardly being unique to SE. Also this proposal is absolutely something that grinder monkeys would use to offline raid people and be clowns, which further solidifies why this jammer is a bad idea.

That said, you were doing good until you had to resort to putting words in my mouth and doing some of the same stuff you accuse me of doing. You're free to think I don't know what I'm doing even though I've been creating content for over 20 years. I've also explained why people in the community hate this kind of stuff, and one can go back to some of the discussions on the old Keen Forums or ask in the discord to see why.

Most in this community do NOT want to see features added to this game that can harm grids purely by existing with no recourse for the person on the receiving end. Not only is not fun, but grants lopsided advantages to one side that can and often does guarantee a win purely by it existing. For someone like yourself who claims to enjoy pvp and has droned on about balance down to the last one and zero as much as you have in other areas, I would have thought you could see this is purely a griefer's wet dream and nothing else. It's literally a block that gives an automatic handicap to one side with no recourse for the other person. While there may be some that wouldn't use this block to be jackasses, many more absolutely would. You even acknowledge this yourself by mentioning how grinder monkeys would use this to make it easier to offline raid. It's mind boggling to me you claim to care so much about pvp, yet honestly think a block like this that would give grinder monkeys a key to the front door is a good idea.

There are tons of things that could be done mechanically speaking in a game and tons of features that could exist that don't currently, this being one of them. However many games don't implement various ideas because they would be way too easy to abuse and would be abused. This idea falls into the category of something too dangerous to add due to abuse just like Jump Inhibitors. ANY block that can harm another's grid purely by existing with no recourse for the other person is an automatic no go and bad design for the purposes of SE. Weapons can be dodged, countered by sufficient armor or even shields if one is using shields, That has been my stance from the start so please spare us the whole "I don't like pvp and don't want to encourage people to attack me" gaslight. It's called I don't like bad design and giving griefers the keys to the front door of people's bases purely by a block existing.

Lastly, you keep making a ton of assumptions about what I do/don't do in game regarding game mode and so on. I do not need to be actively engaged in pvp every single day and make it my primary game mode to understand it just like you don't have to do the same with pve. While I don't actively seek it out now like I did when I was doing arenas and bgs on the side in my WoW days, I'm not opposed to it existing or others enjoying it. I am however opposed to others being forced into it that have no wish to do so. And especially opposed to allowing harm to another's stuff purely by a block existing with no recourse.

So...I would like to think of SE2 in terms of what it could be and not be limited by how SE1 is.

I do not think that it is really my place to worry about what is under the hood of SE2.( May be a little when modding is online.)

I think that having ideas that people can pull apart and rework is a good way to tease out issues of gameplay and game content.

There is a passion among players that can be both inspirational and contentious.

The 'offline' issue does need to be addressed but I think that this is a bigger issue than my post.

I did a brief survey of SE players online and players in server the other day and noticed that around 20% were on server leaving around 80% for everything else. I do not know if this is typical.

I do know that server play can have many dos and donts set by the admin.

So with PVE players the 'offline' issue is not really a thing, and with servers an unwanted feature can be turned off.

If this is the case, why should PVE players have less Keen curated gameplay for the sake of server play, when server play can turn such a feature off?

The whole 20%? That was a very populated server...

Remember: there are 24 hours in a day and the average player plays what, two hours a day?Maybe four on the weekend... And that's even him talking: "fanatic"...

The problem is the voxel world - players change the game environment, the game world. They are thus "tied", hardwired, to a particular world and their creations are at minimum 90% of the time "unattended".

So the problem of how to protect their game creations against damage needs to be solved unconditionally.

@captainbladej52

"...putting words in my mouth..."

-Given prior interactions and my best attempt at getting in your head and seeing things from your perspective, "not wanting to encourage people to attack me" seemed the best translation I could manage at the time.

"...I've been creating content for over 20 years."

-You really need to stop with this one. Appeal to Authority is a well known logical fallacy, and when you don't link evidence to back up the argument you are pulling "authority" on it just makes you look like that guy that thinks his yellow-belt means he can take an army-ranger in a strait fist-fight.

"...one can go back...to see why."

"Most in this community do NOT want to see features..."

-Got a link? It isn't anyone else's job to prove your argument for you.

"...grants lopsided advantages to one side that can and often does guarantee a win purely by it existing."

-It really doesn't. E-war equipment is a thing in a lot of games, when properly balanced there are plenty of work-arounds and counters. For example, Deon has specifically stated that this jammer only jams turret ai. You know what isn't a turret? This railgun drone:

"For someone like yourself who... has droned on about balance..."

"...you claim to care so much about pvp, yet honestly think a block like this that would give grinder monkeys a key to the front door is a good idea."

-You missed the parts earlier in the thread where I did disagree with the idea because of balance, and where we considered how to balance it and deal with the offline-grinder-monkeys, and where I changed my mind. Whatever, you do you I guess, I'm sure nobody else will notice.

"...gaslight..."

"I do not need to be actively engaged in pvp every single day and make it my primary game mode to understand it..."

-Prior to this post I hadn't questioned your capacity to understand pvp on this thread, nor do I believe anyone here has said you need to pvp daily to understand it. I question your mind-set, and your ability to stop thinking like you for long enough to try to think like someone else and see things from their perspective.

.

.

So how to wrap this bit up... I said you didn't mention fixed weapons, but you did and I only just noticed, my apologies. Please don’t forget your evidence-links in your next post, <sarcasm> because provoking you in to repeatedly responding without solid proof of your arguments definitely isn’t a way to keep this thread on the front page until enough pvp’rs see and upvote it to make it happen </sarcasm>.

@Samtex - What is it, apart from not being destroyed, that players are wanting to happen on their server world when they are offline? Are they waiting for other entities to do things, that they will not experience, and find the results later when they rejoin the server? What will they miss and what will they not notice that they have missed?

If players are working in co-op on the server then the changes could be significant and the experiences relayed. In this case, hopefully your colleagues would be defending your assets.

If you, or you and your friends are away should your assets be in an immortal hibernate mode, so that your enemies can press their faces up to the window to stare in on your sleeping base, but be completely unable to do anything against you? (I am not a fan of invisible walls.)

Alternatively, should your base become completely autonomous with AI taking over your characters and recording video of the best parts of the gameplay that you missed?

If acknowledged territories existed could the territory be shut down whilst you are away so that no physics need be processed for your area?

What are the other possibilities, limited server up times or pocket dimensions or an overarching unmatchable authority that will defend and police your property regardless of faction?