A Plea to the developers. Change the games aim.

[Naughty Ram]

I have just recently found out about this game less than a day ago through youtubeing "Spaceship creation games". I was looking for something akin to starmade when I came across this...... Masterpiece of unfortunate missed potential. (The game looks amazing and the destruction is unlike any game before its time. Very good work!)

(I do not make this post to doom or gloom, but because I see the MASSIVE potential this game has, and want it to do as well as possible!)

Fundamentally the game in its current concept will fail. And it pains me to see it headed that way. Time and sales have shown again and again that solely pvp based games that are not match based or quick burns (Taking less than 2 minutes to get into combat, ex: battlefield or planetside 2) all fail. When it comes to pvp, vast majority want instant action. The vast majority do not want to spend hours upon hours of grinding just to loose it all to one means or another.

Now if you where aiming for the small ark/rust niche crowd, then it would be fine.... Though still low on sales..... (Keep in mind ark is only as successful as it is because of private servers that they set up for pve.) But you are trying to market it as an mmo. This is a poor poor choice. Just take Wildstar as the prime example. Wildstars main target audience they built the game around was the 1% of top tier players. They wanted their game to be hard and play hard. And they did just that. They released a very very challenging game that was too hard (and buggy) for most people to enjoy, and where left with just 1% of average players to support the whole mmo. It failed; obviously.

You are making and aiming the game at the 1%. What you need to do is add in a large amount of pve content. Runescape balances pve and pvp very well when it comes to high risk pvp. The vast majority of the world is very safe pve content players can grind and enjoy. But the northern end of the map is full loot, loose everything on death, pvp. Some of the best loot in the game is gotten in the "Wild" of runescape, and it creates natural conflicts with players.

This is what I feel would be the best path for the game to go. 90% PvE area with ai factions, jobs, etc... And 10% High risk high reward pvp areas with large incentives to get people to take the plunge. Also, quick que "Safe" team death-matches/ship pvp players can que into for players who just want to pvp without the loss and grind. The "Space wild" would still push people to go into it with the rewards it would offer.

TLDR:
Adding in even basic levels of PvE content will significantly boost the number of interested players in the game. Adding Fast paced queing for pvp/ship pvp matches will pump the numbers even more.

[Shedar]

Empyrion player base is mostly on private servers

[[HKG]DENNISCX]

For those who screams from "PVE" content, what should be introduced? There isn't any solid discussion on that.

[Stepbro]

Originally posted by HKGDENNISCX:

For those who screams from "PVE" content, what should be introduced? There isn't any solid discussion on that.

Please refer to: Any space game with PvE content?
Standard boiled down nonsense would be pirates/bandits, protectors/law enforcement for PvP players/if there are other illegal activities, trading vessels/other civilian/mercantile ships for players who wish to be the bandits without being bully fetishists (PvPers), hostile space stations, hostile AI factions, randomly generated bounty hunting perhaps, blah blah blah, just your basic space stuff, most of which can also be used in basically the same format for landable planets should Starbase make it to landable planets.

The reason there aren't many people specifically discussing what PvE content should be added, if they are arguing for the addition of PvE content that is, is simply because it's self explanatory, and also because it's not too terribly important, the argument is that PvE content should be considered, if it managed to get beyond that point, that's where we can start worrying about what form that would take - I mean, it's the whole counting eggs before they hatch thing.

[Stepbro]

Originally posted by piddlefoot:

(Snip)

I'll be honest, i didn't read the whole thing for the simple reason i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say.

My point was that the point people are trying to make is not neccessarily that they are looking for SPECIFIC PvE features, there doesn't need to be a whole suggested roadmap as to what they want added or anything like that, the DETAILS aren't neccessarily important at this point in time, the point is simply that people want PvE, if the developers were open to that, we could all go into detail about our thoughts and preferences and blah blah blah, but we're not asking for anything EXACT or specific at this point in time, simply PvE.

At no point did i suggest PvE was not important, simply that the DETAILS were not as important at this point in time, as it sounded like he was suggesting it was, like we needed to provide clear examples and blah blah blah.

[123]

herp derp i don't play pvp games so i came to a pvp game to complain cause the 100 other games i forced into pve games by being a loud minority complaining cause i am not top elitesoor and someone is better than me didn't turn out good and no one plays them herp derp so they went free to play and its boring with farm bots.

When I hear people say "the numbers support pve"
I always wonder if they know steam shows the "Numbers"

https://store.steampowered.com/stats/

I forgot these games are pve games.
CSGO
DOTA 2
PUBG
Rainbow Six Siege
Ark
Rust
Team Fortress 2

Or is steam statistics lying?
FYI Space Engineers is bottom of list barely on it and Empyrion is not on it at all.
Most popular servers of Space engineers is pvp funny enough too.

I enjoy PVE games ... I typically call them SINGLEPLAYER games though.
There is new one coming out maybe you heard of it cyberpunk?

Entire purpose of multiplayer games is to compete that is what pvp is.

Player vs Player

Webster- Compete:
to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (such as position, profit, or a prize) : be in a state of rivalry

You will find many popular pve games on steams list almost all of which are singleplayer.

[[HKG]DENNISCX]

piddlefoot, first of all, you analysis on Space MO is great. Yes, Space Engineers and Empyrion does need more PvE, but the example above only applies to Space Engineers and Empyrion.

Starbase isn't Space Engineers, Starbase isn't Empyrion. Using the example of both of the games and say Starbase should have PvE is like saying you should add chocolate to a Hamburger because that works on donuts.

Starbase is in a genre of it's own, where players will make up most of if not the game play. It is a new game with unprecedented mechanics and exciting possibility for players to do whatever they wish, interacting with each other to achieve whatever they want.

But than we have people like you and Citizen, who wish NOT to associate yourselves with other people, hiding in corners to "build". You vouch for PvE not because you afraid Starbase wouldn't sale well, but because it would fulfill your wish not to interact with the game content --- other players.

Starbase does not need PvE, because instead of being the "game saver" you think it is, it will only kill Starbase. Starbase relies on the player because player ARE the content. The game is seems, will generate content through players interacting with each other. Trade and commerce, mining and exploration, ship and equipment manufacturing, not to mention military conflicts will be conducted by player to player.

Add PvE, opt in or not, will hinder and possibly stop those interaction from happening since why risk confronting other players when you can just hunt stupid AIs.

As activity between players decreases, so will the content. Manufacturing will decline as AIs provided the ships and equipment one would need; Interest in Mining will drop as there's nothing you can't get if you farm PvE, and so will the incentive to explore as people will be reluctant to find new places to mine; Trading and commerce will probably hit the hardest if PvE is introduced. If there are unlimited PvE missions as PvEs tend to have, inflation can kill an economy, making the game increasingly unplayable for everyone especially new players since they have basically nothing to begin with.

Players stop interacting with other players will kill Starbase, new players stop coming will kill Starbase, PvE will kill Starbase.

Starbase does not need to change it's aim as an MMO that focuses on player to player interaction.

Starbase does not need to change it's aim as a game that the players are the content.

And Starbase certainly does not need to change it's aim just because some people wants chocolate on their hamburger

P.S The Devs sunk over five years to make this game, if PvE will make the game sale better, why haven't they done so?

[Stepbro]

Originally posted by piddlefoot:

(snip)

As you may note, i SPECIFICALLY said people were not talking about the SPECIFIC details of EXACTLY the type of PvE they're looking for because i didn't see the SPECIFIC details to be as important as the idea of adding PvE itself, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, you are literally arguing nothing right now, i really don't understand why? I agree with you, the positive impacts of PvE on a game in this particular niche are huge, and i believe the negative impacts of a game in this particular niche being ENTIRELY PvP FOCUSED are literally insane.

I simply believe that when people here are requesting PvE, which, contrary to popular belief, i am not actually here for, though i believe it would be a benefit, i have always advocated for being smart about HOW you implement PvP, we need clear separation, lawless PvP WILL destroy any game in this particular niche without fail, but i don't believe adding PvE will fix that particular problem, it's a good idea, but it's not a fix for my concerns, ANYWHO! My point is, i don't believe people who ARE requesting PvE should be held to the expectation at this point in time where PvE is just a straight up "No" that they have a clearly defined idea of what shape PvE would take in Starbase, i don't believe there's anything wrong with simply requesting PvE, we can hash out the details later, this is ALL i've been trying to say, again, i just don't understand why you feel the need to continue to argue, at no point did i disagree with you, i apologise if i misrepresented the point i was trying to get across, as you may have guessed i'm not good at getting brain throughts out into text, which is why there's so much of it, i tend to try to overexplain and i'm sorry for that, but there's no argument to be had, if you misunderstood, just drop it, weather it was my fault or yours that you did, i don't care, just drop it, not everyone is against you, not everyone is trying to oppress and suppress you, just chill out.

[ɃƵ Crazy Cat Lady]

Originally posted by piddlefoot:

Well thats factually wrong Citizen, that PvE features are not important in games in this genre.

We have run many surveys in this genre, about specifically game features, its ALWAYS PvE features that win that number battle mate.

And whats the most requested PvE feature, good AI.

And it absolutely would benefit this game to have more PvE, because again, the numbers in sales support PvE content games over PvP only, by an absolute country mile.

Player vs Environment is everything in any space survival game, even if you are a robot.
It opens the doors for side missions, a much much much better economy for everyone, and so much more to do in a game.

PvE really is a no brainer if you want Platinum sales.

Mobius PvE is the biggest private group in Elite Dangerous, with over 20,000 members. It's designed for player versus environment play, and player versus player combat is forbidden. But, over the course of a February 2016 weekend, Smiling Dog Crew members sneaked their way in to the group and killed other players.

Think about them numbers.
Think about the sales attached to them numbers, they correlate.
Think about the fact, it could be PvEers that save this game through the funds they bring it, because the number of PvE players absolutely smashes the number of PvP only players.
And I mean it absolutely smashes it.

Here take a look at a real survey of thousands of players and understand just how fundamental PvE features are for a game in this genre to survive.

https://empyriononline.com/threads/feature-survey-2018-results.35530/

We PvPer / PvEers are not here trying to troll you or the devs, we are trying to help you, not make game ending mistakes, like no decent PvE at all.

Read and learn, survey in this genre, note the second picture down at 84% PvEers and 15% PvPers, the top picture also supports more PvE in the game, at 35% PvPers, and 17% co-op and 47% singleplayers, so break that down.

So you might say well co-op is PvP, yea its PvE also in that game, all of SP is simply a player vs Environment.
Co-op is popular in this game because it has a heap of PvE content to play out.

And the overall total of this playerbase that fixated on PvP only, yep a lousy 15%, so Im sorry but some of us are going to push for more PvE, a matter of game survival.

So lets take a look at another game in this genre, much closer to this one, with awesome building system and destructive environment but lacks PvE.
Given this game did not do as detailed a study on its polling it still reflects the huge want for more PvE features.

What major features would you most like to see in Space Engineers?
Poll closed Nov 2, 2016.
A campaign/story .......... 10.4%
Improved multiplayer .......... 47.3%
Improved graphics .......... 3.9%
General stabilization (bug fixing/optimizing) .......... 40.3%
A playable female character .......... 3.9%
NPCs .......... 36.5%
Menu/HUD improvements .......... 12.6%
Animated landing gear .......... 9.7%
More enemies .......... 18.4%
More planets .......... 6.0%


Which of these do you think is the biggest problem in Space Engineers?
Poll closed Nov 2, 2016.
Multiplayer functionality........34.3%
Piston and rotor issues .........12.6%
General bugginess .......... 11.4%
Enemy and environmental hazard balancing .......... 6.3%
Lord Clang (things exploding for no reason and collision detection issues) ......... 19.9%
Ground vehicles/wheel functionality .......... 7.6%


Ok lets break that down a little, More planets, more enemies, NPCs and a campaign story are all PvE orientated features, thats close to 70% of all players wanting PvE features, and this game is a PvP mostly game, some PvE was added 3 years after they started, I tested for the game before Empyrion, they added PvE features because of the massive calling for it, and because the game was loosing players to Empyrion, which has alot of PvE.

Seriously people, the math on this is really not that hard, PvE is literally money for jam in this genre.

So when people say things like PvE is not terribly important, thats a pretty serious lack of understanding of games in this genre that have been successful, almost all of them because of PvE features.

I hope some people have learned from this post.

space engineers is a meme.

[Yellow]

This is not a personal attack but you really need to make what you're writing more concise. It will help with readability.

But no I don't think this game will fail without player verses environment. Would it make the game better in my opinion? Yes, absolutely but also remember PVE doesn't have to mean Player versus AI.

There's just no evidence that these types of games fail.

There are some problems with making a AI heavy video game however. First of all AI is hard to develop, balance and get right. It's also time consuming and because of that take a lot more money to implement. Especially if 90% of the game is focused on pve.

There are also some concerns that the community has with this. The main concern is that AI get's abused to easily and all their ships would just free ammo and materials.

Also no rust is by far not a niche game.

"Ark is only as popular as it is because of their community servers." Well I mean you kinda need those servers in order to play the game. You can't get anywhere on a regular official server because of mega clans that literally just kill anyone that arrives on the island.



What I suggest to you is make a detailed post with your suggestion on what AI should be in the game, why and how it should be implemented. Revise it a few times and make sure you get to the point.

[ɃƵ Crazy Cat Lady]

Originally posted by Birb:

There's just no evidence that these types of games fail.

LLLOOOOOLLLLLL

[Naughty Ram]

Originally posted by Christian2222:

Originally posted by Birb:

There's just no evidence that these types of games fail.

Worlds adrift, Darkfall, Albion online (Its not fully dead, but it never had the success it needed because of aiming at pvp over pve.) Firefall (Bugs and cash-shop truly killed it, but the remaining players left when the focus of the game switched from pve to pvp tournaments to try and edge into the E-sports scene when it was all the rage.)

As I mentioned in my first post. If this was just rust in space, it would probably work just fine. However, it is not a private server run game like rust. It is an MMO. Those two types of games and the requirements to run them, fund them, and the crowd that appeals to them are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

And thats the main point of this whole thread. The game is aiming its focus at the wrong crowd for their current plans. They are shooting for the tiny pile when the big ass huge pile is right there beside it. If they want to go for a niche crowd, thats fine. More power to them. But they are going to get that niche low level money. And I can tell that this game has taken allot of money and time to make. It is genuinely impressive to see what they have made so far! And I can tell its costing allot of money.... That they will not get back.

Mmos CANNOT have unstable player-bases. They REQUIRE constant flow and stream of reliable players to survive. Thats why the most successful ones like WoW and Runescape constantly update the game to retain old players.

Ark, rust, space engineers, connan exiles ALL fail to provide enough updates to the game to keep the players stable. These games players fluctuate in and out of the game constantly.

[ɃƵ Crazy Cat Lady]

I think you quoted wrong.

[Yellow]

I'd continue arguing but what i've learned from the past in steam discussions is that nobody ever changes their opinions and it just get's long and drawn out.

how about this, the game's release will prove right or wrong. The end.

[Charnel]

Dev's will do what they think is best, win or fail so..over it get

[[HKG]DENNISCX]

piddlefoot, your are telling me, that Starbase is in the same genre as Space Engineers? You do realize that there is a difference between Space sandbox MO and Space sandbox MMO, right?

Starbase and Space Engineers are different games. Space Engineers and Empyrion have single player with optional multiplayer, Starbase only have multiplayer. That alone sets it apart from the other two games. Not to mention different means for multiplayer. You can't say just since the bread on hamburger and the base of the donut are made out of flour so that hamburger and donut are the same thing.

Your survey date is all well and good when applied to Space sandbox MO. Starbase however is an MMO, which means that all the data you have on Space Engineers and Empyrion are IRRELEVANT. Just because chocolate donut sell doesn't mean hamburger now need chocolate to improve sales.

I also think you do not understand what "player is the content" means in this context. Starbase relies on player to generate content, either through cooperating with each other or versing each other. As such, player to player interaction is the KEY of Starbase to thrive, the more the merrier. That's also probably why the Devs postponed the sandbox mod to get as much people as possible to play the actual game.

I would like to see you, piddlefoot, suggest some viable PvE content to add to Starbase instead of shouting about it an not giving any workable suggestion.