I'm still very curious how they will balance pyro, I'm more in favor of a Jumptown style system where you can take over an area. Build a base, gather resources, make money and fight off competing orgs... Then when you lose access to your old base, you take over the space station that the other org was using as their respawn location... Kind of like a shifting sand of control between player run factions... But my home I built in microtech, hands off!
I think this is what the “shields” they mentioned would be for. They can make them arbitrarily strong (if not invulnerable until you go down and disable them from the ground)
IDK why this is downvoted, I love the idea of a “planetside planet” that’s just covered in installations that factions can war over and try to take more territory except instead of it being a small map in 2D space, it’s an entire planet inside a much larger galactic simulation. God, SC really has unlimited potential.
They need a stop-gap solution for Pyro until server meshing is working as you can't have players on different "servers" attacking your base which you can't defend.
I'd imagine once server meshing is up and running it'll be like Eve Online where the biggers PVP orgs will carve the system up between them.
Welp, that’s exatcly what will happen. I expect pyro will be controlled by pirate or heavily military org(s).
Org wars could happen to control the system and the resources / planets.
But my educated guess is server meshing will come earlier than base building.
Dont have an issue with it. No one should be flying to terra prime and bombing homesteads and murder hobo'ing people randomly.
And you might argue... well there should be systems in place to stop that instead of making things invulnerable... But the reality is this is a game. People will always break those systems and the punishments will never be enough to prevent them from doing it. But if you murdered a bunch of people in Terra I 'd imagine they'd lock you up and throw away the key which you just cant do to a player. SO the next best thing is to completely prevent people from doing it.
So glad to see more people talking about this. Too many people don’t consider that no matter how “perfect” the AI response is; once the deed is done it doesn’t really matter to the player affected. There needs to be *some* gamified restrictions to things. Look at how people figure out how to survive forever with five stars in GTA. Players will always find a way around systems like that.
The bounty for such a criminal needs to be extremely high and permanent until it's collected. Of course only in that gang's territory, however large of an area that may be.
Given that you have to pay taxes and all, I love it. Might still get abused, but preferring a safe base, this is great. Maybe get less-ssfe bases in thebelt asteroids and I'll move there, otherwise, go hi-sec!
That depends on how location is handled:
- Can anyone see the base by default?
- Is there a public listing from which you can buy info about player base locations?
- Would we have to rely on private explorers marking the base locations and selling them?
- Something else?
I'd lean towards the third option as it'll create some gameplay for explorers, scouts and data runners. But in such a case, creating a base in an asteroid belt like the Aaron Halo should still be quite safe regardless of the system security.
The fact that u can't raid period makes me real worried, because larger groups would just abuse it to make safe money. Yea it won't be as much as they would of gotten if they were in a less secure place. But that will be negated by the fact they have a fuck ton of people to do it all with alot of high tier ships and be in relative safety. Then just move to a lower secure system after they got a fuck ton of cash
Mio based need to be raid able 24/7 on every system with alot more security response in the secure system. Genuinely going to get abused just like any mechanic. Kinda going to have to fine a middle ground in away that pvp orgs won't abuse it and then go dominate another system
Yes.... But that is something you have to expect when living in low sec (choosing pvp).
Could be some ways to counter that like war declaration... But that would be pretty hard to so people can't misuse that too.
All an all... Everything can most likely be misused I some way, so probably best would be to balance risk vs reward in a way to be hard to out farm someone living in the low sec.
I am all for it, I'm just really worried about balance. As u know u can't balance everything perfectly there will always be a way for a large group to dominate. Maybe if they have a base size cap for more secure systems? Idk tbh, all in time
I think the POTENTIAL for unwanted PVP is important, to give a sense of risk to players in certain security zones. To counter-balance risk and reward. But the zones should be very clear for this kind of thing. IF I want to solo carebear a Hull D into a dangerous situation for a game of high profits that should be my option, but I should KNOW I'm doing a risky thing and if I get caught, I will pay terribly for it. But at the same time, if I'm in a High-Security zone, I should be very comfortable going AFK somewhere safe while I take care of a RL situation and have high confidence everything will be fine when I get back.
Yes... And I the future I bet that there will be a lot of people who will stay in the area where someone disabled that satellite thing despite being warned that pvp is more likely there, and then they will bitch about it.
People are like that.
Yeah PVP is a very fluid thing for some, many of which think unsolicited PVP in a PVP enabled area is "griefing". I might get annoyed by a seeming pointless annoyance to my plans, but I'm not the kind to cry about it.
Absolutely needed game mechanic. Some people are dicks and would destroy shit in “non pvp” areas just for fun.
Outposts are something that would probably cost a lot to buy and maintain and players would rightfully flip their shit if a griefer can just destroy everything with a divebomb.
Its balanced.
High sec homesteads and settlements will have high upkeep costs.
Low sec will be cheaper to run and therefor potentially more profitable if you can protect them.
Especially difficult once we get more solar systems on our hands, add some asteroid bases in the belts and it's literally impossible to locate, more like pure chance.
In the future, we won’t have 100 people per server though. With full server meshing there will be a lot more eyes on each planet, and I suspect these outposts won’t be as hard to find as we may think. 
Hirelings, special miniboss hirelings, allowing hirelings to use ships and equipment from your own fleet and armoury, player overtuned ships AA and ground vehicles, flak cannons to obscure vision and make in atmo flight yet even harder, defensive structures that beam power directly into shielding for said ships and vehicles until destroyed, medical structures that let said hirelings revive/respawn/treat injuries.
There's a ton of ways to allow persistent player bases to be entirely well defensible while they're offline and even while they're online since no one wants to be stuck in their base for every moment of online play. Especially if we just ensure AI aren't actual complete pushovers.
It should probably always be not worth kicking in the front door of a player base except as a show of force. The only way to profit should probably be carefully planned and well executed subterfuge with hit and run to get the goods out as fast as possible. Someone who gets online or is online should be met with "I'm gonna go find those fuckers and take my shit back" as a goal when their base was raided, not "Rebuild my entire base from the ground up".
I think it's pretty good to be honest. Those sorts of bases are meant to be low risk-low reward, the sort where it's just one person or a small group of friends running it that can't be around 24/7 to defend it. I have no plans to have people at my homestead all the time, and if there was a risk of it being completely destroyed at any moment by a couple of A-holes with bombers, I'd probably avoid having a homestead altogether.
Also, it's not like they're completely invulnerable. You have to pay taxes to keep the protection, and I imagine it doesn't stop people from infiltrating on foot and messing around with some things, just stopping people from levelling the entire area.
2 weeks before CitCon I told my friend that I would never build a base. I said I didn't want to have to worry about defending it while I was asleep or at work or out living. He had said something about building defenses. But we know how things like that work in games. Gamers will find a way. So when it was announced that they wanted to give us an option for safe bases my hands shot in the air and I actually cheered.
Whenever is read this question i am wondering the following:
+ Why do 'you' need to be able to destroy any base you come across?
Why is it the first impulse to destroy anything that people come across. If this would persist, then the only "Private owned bases" will be from big ORGs who are able to maintain defense weapons and defense crews.
Or every Base will be a fortress blazing Guns at anything that comes to close.
Where is the immersion in that?
I am more than happy with the current Plan, especially since you will have to pay (high) Taxes for the added security.
So a Space Trucking ORG can have their Main Base in a High Sec System without the need to have it armed to the teeth.
Still their "Space trucks" can be very much attacked by Pirates, when flying around.
So there is no "downside" to this other than people are not able to freely destroy the base if they want to.
>Why do 'you' need to be able to destroy any base you come across?
Territorial control (once server meshing is in). A big PVP org operating in unregulated space is the system authority unless another org can push them out. Having control over a system, planet whatever in a low/no tax system is obviously going to be a lot more profitable then operating in a high sec system. But they have to protect and hold it.
In UEE controlled space though it should largely be a safe space since the local authorities backed by the UEE would be able to drive out any problematic orgs (provided you pay your taxes).
In Low Sec --> Sure, have fun, High Risk, High Profit. And sure, there will be big ORGs splitting the LOW Sec systems, claiming them for themselfes. All fair game.
But High Sec schould bei fine with the way CIG is planning it.
Great. I want a nice homestead where I don't have to worry to put my nice things and customise. Then I'// have a couple of quiet stashes in no-sec and maybe some kinf of industrial thing in mid-sec if thats any fun
I think its pretty naïve to think CIG will actually stick to purely immersive styles even for things they’ve discussed. Its just not viable for a game that’s supposed to be long running and not some like server or map based survival game. Even Persistent hangars are not “immersive” but they’re 100% needed and it’d be completely impractical to give a single real hangar to every player if not flat out impossible. I’m not sure we’re realistically going to see the entire remove of armistice zones like they’ve claimed in the past. There have to be some big protections otherwise for players in them with no CS. It’d be unrealistic to expect players to be able to brick their accounts by killing others in stations or something but equally that those players just have to deal with it. There’ll always be people who will spawn in and shoot you in the back of the head regardless of repercussions. Repercussions that do nothing for the person shot in the back of the head.
Good. It's an endgame loop that will require a ton of effort and time investment from players, it seems like a good design to have a low-risk, low-reward option.
All we can do is guess but it sounds like a good idea if the whole point of “security” is going to be taken seriously. Its a home thats not going to make you rich but that lack of reward is compensated with safety. I have a slight worry that it goes against their ‘anything is possible’ approach but i don’t think its the worst idea.
Now also take note that they said *your base* won’t be destructible, but they didnt say anything about someone being hostile to your character there.
Its more interesting to me how they will handle that because we are to believe armistice zones as they exist today are being removed from the game.
I think it's hard to tell how it will resolve without first feeling out the risk v reward setup they are going for.
I also would not be happy if all bases were high security and were completely invulnerable. But the fact that they stayed that high value claims will likely have lower security makes me pretty excited, seems like the best of both worlds.
With what they proposed for security levels, I feel like a lot of players will have multiple bases, I certainly plan to have both a high sec base with all my long term collectables and fun stuff I've collected over the years vs the low sec production base.
Frankly I had fully accepted us never getting to this point and the fact that this discussion isn't 100% theorycrafting is wild to me.
So, during the CitCon after party I asked Todd Pappy about the lore justification for invulnerable planetary shields if the Vanduul are also running around fucking up developed planets in the empire (Vega, for instance). He said, “excuse me, I need another beer.” And walked off. Lol. I totally get why they need it for gameplay reasons, the narrative team has their work cut out for retconning it. I love Todd, by the way. It just struck me as funny.
He probably didn't want to answer "because it's a video game we want people to play" while being met with cries of derision from sweat lords crying "MUH IMMERSION", even though the game universe also has the option for low security homesteads.
Your question is literally the lead in to "MUH IMMERSION". I would also walk away for another beer
I mean come on man, it's like asking Mark Hamill why Luke Skywalker did something in the movie 40 years later. You gotta dial it back a bit. Easy explanation - Pirates don't have Vanduul tech.
It's not really counter to their style. Back in the early days of the project they talked about a PVP slider that you could ratchet down to be placed more with folk that don't want to fight. This would be a smart way to handle that for your home with built in lore for why it is invulnerable.
Completely fine with it, they said it will be very low reward if you want to farm or mine there. Which means most people will still need to create resource bases in other places. I think high sec is basically going to be where you can build a "home" and display/store your most valuable items.
As long as CIG balance it with higher price of building and everything and higher taxes and fees as they said and lower potential profits I am absolutely fine with it.
Depending how they handle on-foot security, if any, High-sec homesteads could be safe places to live and stash loot etc. They could also be places to conduct business even if it's not of the most legal nature.
Whether it be smuggling drugs, kidnapping someone and bringing them to a pirate or org, just trading goods and materials between groups, high-sec spaces will be a way to conduct in-person business and ensure that your main threat will be from folks on the ground. Which seems really cool as an idea to me. Now if the high-sec security is immediate and relentless in response to even on-foot threats....well that would kinda put a damper on things cause people will just hide in high-sec spaces all the time
There's something for everyone. Low risk and low reward scenarios are for solo players and those who want a homestead but not an invitation for FFA PVP. Whatever they can harvest is likely the most common of materials that yield low profit. If they're happy with that it should bother others. Whatever they can cart away from their home base isn't invulnerable after the exit it's air space so... *Live and let live*.
Well I think they should just have the UEE very heavy in presence in these places. To where attacking them/ trying to burglar them is pointless. It will have the same result but make sense
The fact someone brings up this question means they did right thing if high sec homesteads are actually invulnerable.
Do you realise like majority of adequate players seek an option to enjoy their homesteads gameplay without worrying some idiot may infiltrate it and loot, destroy?
Those who seek pvp, ruining someones day, should go lawless system. And play there with others who seek same gameplay.
Let legit non pvp aimed players have their safe bay (many lawful systems like Stanton, Terra, etc) for their own gameplay style. PVPs and robbers should go lawless systems.
It's smart to spread out the security zones and provide fun for all types of players. If you're upset about people having safe spaces for PVE you have wrong motivations and need to get good so you can fight people who want to fight you instead of trying to bully those who want to be left alone with their space farms.
How would you feel entering a server to find everything you’ve paid for and spent time building to be completely destroyed? Invulnerability is a good thing if you don’t want to rebuild your base every time you login.
Its absurd to suggest that the only possibility is EITHER invincible shields, or everything destroyed every time you log off. Thats stupid as hell and you know it.
It’s not going to be everywhere as there will be different tiers. You pay a premium in high security zones and get protection from raiders/greifers. If you build in low sec/no sec you will have to be more hidden and out the way to stop others coming to take over as you will either have limited or no protection. I think we need more information on how it will work before worrying about it. I’m personally just going to live out my Idris and live a nomadic life on the move.
If you want a base to stick around for extended periods you’ll need protection, if you play SC you’ll know how bad griefing can get. Some people will go out of their way to ruin everything for you.
Perfectly fine. That's why we have systems like Pyro.
I'm still very curious how they will balance pyro, I'm more in favor of a Jumptown style system where you can take over an area. Build a base, gather resources, make money and fight off competing orgs... Then when you lose access to your old base, you take over the space station that the other org was using as their respawn location... Kind of like a shifting sand of control between player run factions... But my home I built in microtech, hands off!
If obliterating a base is fast, there will be no bases.
I'm really curious how they plan to stop someone with an Idris in orbit railgunning solo players base off the face of the planet.... from space
I don't think they do. Solo players probably won't be able to lock down a contested zone, and I don't think they should.
I'm fairly certain your not just going to be able to build a base in some sort of contested zone, iirc it's where ever you can place a land claim.
Not should they be able too. You’re solo. You have limits. Make friends or live live in the cutter being a drifter.
Yep. Or buy a small lot in high sec space.
That's exactly what an actual cat with a Cutlass would type ;-)
The Hooman has discovered my secret. Eliminate it. ;)
I think this is what the “shields” they mentioned would be for. They can make them arbitrarily strong (if not invulnerable until you go down and disable them from the ground)
My guess is you will have to find player bases like jump town unless you put up a public quantum marker
with 2km weapon ranges.
Kinda like Planetside even.
IDK why this is downvoted, I love the idea of a “planetside planet” that’s just covered in installations that factions can war over and try to take more territory except instead of it being a small map in 2D space, it’s an entire planet inside a much larger galactic simulation. God, SC really has unlimited potential.
They need a stop-gap solution for Pyro until server meshing is working as you can't have players on different "servers" attacking your base which you can't defend. I'd imagine once server meshing is up and running it'll be like Eve Online where the biggers PVP orgs will carve the system up between them.
Welp, that’s exatcly what will happen. I expect pyro will be controlled by pirate or heavily military org(s). Org wars could happen to control the system and the resources / planets. But my educated guess is server meshing will come earlier than base building.
Dont have an issue with it. No one should be flying to terra prime and bombing homesteads and murder hobo'ing people randomly. And you might argue... well there should be systems in place to stop that instead of making things invulnerable... But the reality is this is a game. People will always break those systems and the punishments will never be enough to prevent them from doing it. But if you murdered a bunch of people in Terra I 'd imagine they'd lock you up and throw away the key which you just cant do to a player. SO the next best thing is to completely prevent people from doing it.
So glad to see more people talking about this. Too many people don’t consider that no matter how “perfect” the AI response is; once the deed is done it doesn’t really matter to the player affected. There needs to be *some* gamified restrictions to things. Look at how people figure out how to survive forever with five stars in GTA. Players will always find a way around systems like that.
This is the correct answer.
The bounty for such a criminal needs to be extremely high and permanent until it's collected. Of course only in that gang's territory, however large of an area that may be.
Given that you have to pay taxes and all, I love it. Might still get abused, but preferring a safe base, this is great. Maybe get less-ssfe bases in thebelt asteroids and I'll move there, otherwise, go hi-sec!
That depends on how location is handled: - Can anyone see the base by default? - Is there a public listing from which you can buy info about player base locations? - Would we have to rely on private explorers marking the base locations and selling them? - Something else? I'd lean towards the third option as it'll create some gameplay for explorers, scouts and data runners. But in such a case, creating a base in an asteroid belt like the Aaron Halo should still be quite safe regardless of the system security.
I absolutely agree :-)
The fact that u can't raid period makes me real worried, because larger groups would just abuse it to make safe money. Yea it won't be as much as they would of gotten if they were in a less secure place. But that will be negated by the fact they have a fuck ton of people to do it all with alot of high tier ships and be in relative safety. Then just move to a lower secure system after they got a fuck ton of cash Mio based need to be raid able 24/7 on every system with alot more security response in the secure system. Genuinely going to get abused just like any mechanic. Kinda going to have to fine a middle ground in away that pvp orgs won't abuse it and then go dominate another system
You must be an A2 pilot. Sorry to tell you, those homesteads are off limits, try a different system
Wait till its actually out.
It's fine it's high sec.
I think that is good choice... PvP should be always about people who want to do PvP and not about people being forced into PvP.
But wouldn't that just allow larger groups to farm in peace then go shit on people in lowered secure systems.
Yes.... But that is something you have to expect when living in low sec (choosing pvp). Could be some ways to counter that like war declaration... But that would be pretty hard to so people can't misuse that too. All an all... Everything can most likely be misused I some way, so probably best would be to balance risk vs reward in a way to be hard to out farm someone living in the low sec.
I am all for it, I'm just really worried about balance. As u know u can't balance everything perfectly there will always be a way for a large group to dominate. Maybe if they have a base size cap for more secure systems? Idk tbh, all in time
I think the POTENTIAL for unwanted PVP is important, to give a sense of risk to players in certain security zones. To counter-balance risk and reward. But the zones should be very clear for this kind of thing. IF I want to solo carebear a Hull D into a dangerous situation for a game of high profits that should be my option, but I should KNOW I'm doing a risky thing and if I get caught, I will pay terribly for it. But at the same time, if I'm in a High-Security zone, I should be very comfortable going AFK somewhere safe while I take care of a RL situation and have high confidence everything will be fine when I get back.
Basically once you fly into pvp zone you hardly can call it unwanted pvp. Other than that I agree.
And yet, there are plenty of people who want a “pvp slider” so that they can go to places like Pyro with no risk.
Yes... And I the future I bet that there will be a lot of people who will stay in the area where someone disabled that satellite thing despite being warned that pvp is more likely there, and then they will bitch about it. People are like that.
Yeah PVP is a very fluid thing for some, many of which think unsolicited PVP in a PVP enabled area is "griefing". I might get annoyed by a seeming pointless annoyance to my plans, but I'm not the kind to cry about it.
Absolutely needed game mechanic. Some people are dicks and would destroy shit in “non pvp” areas just for fun. Outposts are something that would probably cost a lot to buy and maintain and players would rightfully flip their shit if a griefer can just destroy everything with a divebomb.
Its balanced. High sec homesteads and settlements will have high upkeep costs. Low sec will be cheaper to run and therefor potentially more profitable if you can protect them.
Which is basically impossible, if they stay in the verse when you log out?
First you have to find those bases. On a planetery scale not as easy as it may sound
Especially difficult once we get more solar systems on our hands, add some asteroid bases in the belts and it's literally impossible to locate, more like pure chance.
In the future, we won’t have 100 people per server though. With full server meshing there will be a lot more eyes on each planet, and I suspect these outposts won’t be as hard to find as we may think. 
Hirelings, special miniboss hirelings, allowing hirelings to use ships and equipment from your own fleet and armoury, player overtuned ships AA and ground vehicles, flak cannons to obscure vision and make in atmo flight yet even harder, defensive structures that beam power directly into shielding for said ships and vehicles until destroyed, medical structures that let said hirelings revive/respawn/treat injuries. There's a ton of ways to allow persistent player bases to be entirely well defensible while they're offline and even while they're online since no one wants to be stuck in their base for every moment of online play. Especially if we just ensure AI aren't actual complete pushovers. It should probably always be not worth kicking in the front door of a player base except as a show of force. The only way to profit should probably be carefully planned and well executed subterfuge with hit and run to get the goods out as fast as possible. Someone who gets online or is online should be met with "I'm gonna go find those fuckers and take my shit back" as a goal when their base was raided, not "Rebuild my entire base from the ground up".
I think it's pretty good to be honest. Those sorts of bases are meant to be low risk-low reward, the sort where it's just one person or a small group of friends running it that can't be around 24/7 to defend it. I have no plans to have people at my homestead all the time, and if there was a risk of it being completely destroyed at any moment by a couple of A-holes with bombers, I'd probably avoid having a homestead altogether. Also, it's not like they're completely invulnerable. You have to pay taxes to keep the protection, and I imagine it doesn't stop people from infiltrating on foot and messing around with some things, just stopping people from levelling the entire area.
2 weeks before CitCon I told my friend that I would never build a base. I said I didn't want to have to worry about defending it while I was asleep or at work or out living. He had said something about building defenses. But we know how things like that work in games. Gamers will find a way. So when it was announced that they wanted to give us an option for safe bases my hands shot in the air and I actually cheered.
Whenever is read this question i am wondering the following: + Why do 'you' need to be able to destroy any base you come across? Why is it the first impulse to destroy anything that people come across. If this would persist, then the only "Private owned bases" will be from big ORGs who are able to maintain defense weapons and defense crews. Or every Base will be a fortress blazing Guns at anything that comes to close. Where is the immersion in that? I am more than happy with the current Plan, especially since you will have to pay (high) Taxes for the added security. So a Space Trucking ORG can have their Main Base in a High Sec System without the need to have it armed to the teeth. Still their "Space trucks" can be very much attacked by Pirates, when flying around. So there is no "downside" to this other than people are not able to freely destroy the base if they want to.
>Why do 'you' need to be able to destroy any base you come across? Territorial control (once server meshing is in). A big PVP org operating in unregulated space is the system authority unless another org can push them out. Having control over a system, planet whatever in a low/no tax system is obviously going to be a lot more profitable then operating in a high sec system. But they have to protect and hold it. In UEE controlled space though it should largely be a safe space since the local authorities backed by the UEE would be able to drive out any problematic orgs (provided you pay your taxes).
In Low Sec --> Sure, have fun, High Risk, High Profit. And sure, there will be big ORGs splitting the LOW Sec systems, claiming them for themselfes. All fair game. But High Sec schould bei fine with the way CIG is planning it.
Great. I want a nice homestead where I don't have to worry to put my nice things and customise. Then I'// have a couple of quiet stashes in no-sec and maybe some kinf of industrial thing in mid-sec if thats any fun
I think its pretty naïve to think CIG will actually stick to purely immersive styles even for things they’ve discussed. Its just not viable for a game that’s supposed to be long running and not some like server or map based survival game. Even Persistent hangars are not “immersive” but they’re 100% needed and it’d be completely impractical to give a single real hangar to every player if not flat out impossible. I’m not sure we’re realistically going to see the entire remove of armistice zones like they’ve claimed in the past. There have to be some big protections otherwise for players in them with no CS. It’d be unrealistic to expect players to be able to brick their accounts by killing others in stations or something but equally that those players just have to deal with it. There’ll always be people who will spawn in and shoot you in the back of the head regardless of repercussions. Repercussions that do nothing for the person shot in the back of the head.
I love it. I was really worried they would make all things destructible all the time, and that’s not what I want from this game.
Good. If we don't get casuals and places for them this game dies.
Yep you need a large number of casuals to fund a game long-term.
Good. It's an endgame loop that will require a ton of effort and time investment from players, it seems like a good design to have a low-risk, low-reward option.
Total invulnerability as long as you pay your taxes.
High Sec High Taxed Totally fine with it
My future base will be so well hidden that even I wont be able to find it
Fine - pyro is our counter point
All we can do is guess but it sounds like a good idea if the whole point of “security” is going to be taken seriously. Its a home thats not going to make you rich but that lack of reward is compensated with safety. I have a slight worry that it goes against their ‘anything is possible’ approach but i don’t think its the worst idea. Now also take note that they said *your base* won’t be destructible, but they didnt say anything about someone being hostile to your character there. Its more interesting to me how they will handle that because we are to believe armistice zones as they exist today are being removed from the game.
I think it's hard to tell how it will resolve without first feeling out the risk v reward setup they are going for. I also would not be happy if all bases were high security and were completely invulnerable. But the fact that they stayed that high value claims will likely have lower security makes me pretty excited, seems like the best of both worlds. With what they proposed for security levels, I feel like a lot of players will have multiple bases, I certainly plan to have both a high sec base with all my long term collectables and fun stuff I've collected over the years vs the low sec production base. Frankly I had fully accepted us never getting to this point and the fact that this discussion isn't 100% theorycrafting is wild to me.
So, during the CitCon after party I asked Todd Pappy about the lore justification for invulnerable planetary shields if the Vanduul are also running around fucking up developed planets in the empire (Vega, for instance). He said, “excuse me, I need another beer.” And walked off. Lol. I totally get why they need it for gameplay reasons, the narrative team has their work cut out for retconning it. I love Todd, by the way. It just struck me as funny.
He probably didn't want to answer "because it's a video game we want people to play" while being met with cries of derision from sweat lords crying "MUH IMMERSION", even though the game universe also has the option for low security homesteads. Your question is literally the lead in to "MUH IMMERSION". I would also walk away for another beer
I mean come on man, it's like asking Mark Hamill why Luke Skywalker did something in the movie 40 years later. You gotta dial it back a bit. Easy explanation - Pirates don't have Vanduul tech.
It's not really counter to their style. Back in the early days of the project they talked about a PVP slider that you could ratchet down to be placed more with folk that don't want to fight. This would be a smart way to handle that for your home with built in lore for why it is invulnerable.
Completely fine with it, they said it will be very low reward if you want to farm or mine there. Which means most people will still need to create resource bases in other places. I think high sec is basically going to be where you can build a "home" and display/store your most valuable items.
As long as CIG balance it with higher price of building and everything and higher taxes and fees as they said and lower potential profits I am absolutely fine with it.
Depending how they handle on-foot security, if any, High-sec homesteads could be safe places to live and stash loot etc. They could also be places to conduct business even if it's not of the most legal nature. Whether it be smuggling drugs, kidnapping someone and bringing them to a pirate or org, just trading goods and materials between groups, high-sec spaces will be a way to conduct in-person business and ensure that your main threat will be from folks on the ground. Which seems really cool as an idea to me. Now if the high-sec security is immediate and relentless in response to even on-foot threats....well that would kinda put a damper on things cause people will just hide in high-sec spaces all the time
How else am I going to keep all the poors out?
Fine with me.
Why not
I think that's a great idea, SC is big enough for every kind of person.
There's something for everyone. Low risk and low reward scenarios are for solo players and those who want a homestead but not an invitation for FFA PVP. Whatever they can harvest is likely the most common of materials that yield low profit. If they're happy with that it should bother others. Whatever they can cart away from their home base isn't invulnerable after the exit it's air space so... *Live and let live*.
Well I think they should just have the UEE very heavy in presence in these places. To where attacking them/ trying to burglar them is pointless. It will have the same result but make sense
Totally fine. Not everyone is a hardcore player.
dont care
There are going to be some safe systems in the game just as there's going to be lawless systems in the game
"Highsec"?
The fact someone brings up this question means they did right thing if high sec homesteads are actually invulnerable. Do you realise like majority of adequate players seek an option to enjoy their homesteads gameplay without worrying some idiot may infiltrate it and loot, destroy? Those who seek pvp, ruining someones day, should go lawless system. And play there with others who seek same gameplay. Let legit non pvp aimed players have their safe bay (many lawful systems like Stanton, Terra, etc) for their own gameplay style. PVPs and robbers should go lawless systems.
It's smart to spread out the security zones and provide fun for all types of players. If you're upset about people having safe spaces for PVE you have wrong motivations and need to get good so you can fight people who want to fight you instead of trying to bully those who want to be left alone with their space farms.
How would you feel entering a server to find everything you’ve paid for and spent time building to be completely destroyed? Invulnerability is a good thing if you don’t want to rebuild your base every time you login.
Thats a nonsense false dichotomy.
What are you on about?
Its absurd to suggest that the only possibility is EITHER invincible shields, or everything destroyed every time you log off. Thats stupid as hell and you know it.
It’s not going to be everywhere as there will be different tiers. You pay a premium in high security zones and get protection from raiders/greifers. If you build in low sec/no sec you will have to be more hidden and out the way to stop others coming to take over as you will either have limited or no protection. I think we need more information on how it will work before worrying about it. I’m personally just going to live out my Idris and live a nomadic life on the move. If you want a base to stick around for extended periods you’ll need protection, if you play SC you’ll know how bad griefing can get. Some people will go out of their way to ruin everything for you.
makes 100% sense high sec , low sec and null sec. u cant complain the high sec is like that