Anti-Personnel Protection
One of the biggest problems of SE1's PvP mode is the fact that players can simply respawn and throw themselves at stations until the station (or a single turret) runs out of ammo. In a different discussion, "Faction Territories", I thought of an idea.
The simplest solution that is still fair for everyone is a shield. No, I am not talking about energy shields, simply an anti-personnel shield. The idea behind this, is that it is a station-only block which kills incoming enemy players, but ONLY when the station has not sustained any/little damage.
For example, if an enemy ship does a strafing run on my station a few times and my turrets are insufficient to take it down, then my anti-personnel shield goes down, and they can throw raiders/boarders at my station. The reason this is balanced is because it means that players cannot throw themselves at stations without a larger investment (building a ship, ammo, defenses) but also does not prevent players from boarding 'just because'.
Now, the reason that this is NOT the same as a safe zone generator is for a few reasons. Ships/stations can still be damaged, and there are no gameplay effects that this provides other than protecting against solo boarders. I would imagine that the shield is not simply present on every station, instead being something that requires either A: Power (for a single block), or B: multiple blocks to cover the station (in a radius around the blocks, like an actual shield).
The reason this is station only is for a few reasons. Firstly, ships that had a feature like this would be pretty hard to board, ever. I also think that if your ship isn't properly protected (especially while offline or away), then that is something you could be punished for. This further incentivizes either having more turrets or having hangars big enough to house your ships (the hangar would have a AP shield because it's a station).
The actual radius of the shield, in my mind, would be within a few blocks worth (large blocks) of the station, and not covering turret range or anything crazy like that. With this implementation, boarding is still a perfectly viable strategy, and you cannot simply respawn and drain ammo until you get into the station.
I'd like to hear your guys' thoughts if you have any. Balance issues, functionality, etc.
I like this feedback
Considering that in some of the recent dev-logs (iirc) they talked about 'Hacking' and such with boarding, I wanted to amend this slightly. If a prospective boarder has an anti-shielding device (a Hacking tool), they can board the ship, but are still liable to be zapped by the shield if they start grinding down the ship (excluding turrets). This is more in line with what I'd expect out of a 'Hacking' tool considering this proposal. Here's an example:
Boarder A has an anti-shield device they bought from the Boatmen (or found in a ruin, etc). They are able to hack in to the doors of a station based on a timer (ex: 1.5m per door, or 20s but activates an alarm?) but are unable to grind it down. If the station owner has not fortified their interior, or their airlocks/doorways, then this boarder would be able to make their way to important components and sabotage them in preparation for an attack, or even take over the station (I would prefer the former).
If it was fortified, Boarder A can try to take out the turrets using hand-held combat weapons or be stopped by other defenses (imagine a blast door covering the entrance being an effective defense here, expensive/needs specific design but guards internal components). The boarder has still made progress (if they've taken out turrets) and has a foothold in the base for their main attack, without grinding or going through the hull. This is viable, and does not feel too unfair (better internal fortification as a counter means it is a ship/station design issue rather than a gameplay issue, incentivize making stations larger and more defended).
Boarder B does not have an anti-shield. They rush the station with only their jetpack and a dream. The station has an AP shield, and the engineer gets zapped before they can reach the hull. They come back with a ship and deal enough damage to overload the shield, allowing them to grind into the hull of the ship and disable important components. In this scenario, boarding is still viable, yet requires more investment rather than just a respawn nearby. If the station has viable anti-ship defenses, then Boarder B will be unable to grind into the station without much larger investment (better ship to take out turrets).
If we do have the option for crew members in the future, then we could also have those be an effective counter to players with a Hacking tool (and some of those without).
Considering that in some of the recent dev-logs (iirc) they talked about 'Hacking' and such with boarding, I wanted to amend this slightly. If a prospective boarder has an anti-shielding device (a Hacking tool), they can board the ship, but are still liable to be zapped by the shield if they start grinding down the ship (excluding turrets). This is more in line with what I'd expect out of a 'Hacking' tool considering this proposal. Here's an example:
Boarder A has an anti-shield device they bought from the Boatmen (or found in a ruin, etc). They are able to hack in to the doors of a station based on a timer (ex: 1.5m per door, or 20s but activates an alarm?) but are unable to grind it down. If the station owner has not fortified their interior, or their airlocks/doorways, then this boarder would be able to make their way to important components and sabotage them in preparation for an attack, or even take over the station (I would prefer the former).
If it was fortified, Boarder A can try to take out the turrets using hand-held combat weapons or be stopped by other defenses (imagine a blast door covering the entrance being an effective defense here, expensive/needs specific design but guards internal components). The boarder has still made progress (if they've taken out turrets) and has a foothold in the base for their main attack, without grinding or going through the hull. This is viable, and does not feel too unfair (better internal fortification as a counter means it is a ship/station design issue rather than a gameplay issue, incentivize making stations larger and more defended).
Boarder B does not have an anti-shield. They rush the station with only their jetpack and a dream. The station has an AP shield, and the engineer gets zapped before they can reach the hull. They come back with a ship and deal enough damage to overload the shield, allowing them to grind into the hull of the ship and disable important components. In this scenario, boarding is still viable, yet requires more investment rather than just a respawn nearby. If the station has viable anti-ship defenses, then Boarder B will be unable to grind into the station without much larger investment (better ship to take out turrets).
If we do have the option for crew members in the future, then we could also have those be an effective counter to players with a Hacking tool (and some of those without).
Replies have been locked on this page!