Space Engineers Feedback

38
Votes
Territory Ownership
It would be nice if we somehow had the option to "capture" territory for ourselves and restrict some actions (such as building or mining) within the territory. This could be done a number of ways such as: 1. Have a specific antenna setting that "claims" an area. Has to be built on a station (so you cant have mobile territory) and cannot be build within range of another similar antenna (unless owned by faction). 2. Add a new module similar to the antenna that claims a specific section of land. Larger versions of the block will claim larger sections of area. 3. Have a "in range of base" check when building. Make it so you cannot build/mine within a certain distance of other players structures.


Shadows shared this idea 14/09/17 21:06
HighGround 16/09/17 06:54
Antennas have a purpose already, I think beacons would be a better option for a claim block. Have a beacon claim an area 50,000 meters in all directions no blocks can be place in the area unless they belong to the owner/fraction members/Allies. This would make PvP more interesting as it would give us not only a goal, but also it could force attacking enemies to retreat to friendly/unclaimed territory to repair. Would also make base attack more interesting as the attack can't place blocks to build it makes capturing medical bays more important as we can't build our own in enemy space. This would be a welcomed feature!
susu 16/09/17 11:06
Great idea! Few extra detail: - block must be powered - claimed areas should not even overlap - server settings: maximum range (50km might be too much for some admin) - server settings: block limit per player (otherwise someone could claim a whole planet?) - allowed only on static grids - actions could be defined if enemy player or grid enters your territory (e.g. play alert sound, call a program block, etc.) What about hacking? Maybe in claimed areas other players should not able to weld?
NapalmSyrup 16/09/17 18:15
You can already claim territory by building turrets anywhere you want to keep people away from. This system would stunt gameplay massively. It reduces the number of offensive options players have when attacking enemy territory, and prevents neutrals and hostiles from being able to build or repair anything if they happen to be in the wrong part of the map. I wish I could give negative votes, because I hate this idea.
xiojade 17/09/17 17:18
To be honest, it doesn't even have to be as preventative as disallowing other factions or players from mining within your territory, it could be a case of flagging up a simple message to say "someone is mining in your territory" or "There has been a violation of your borders", giving you a heads up to go and seek them out, and sort them out :)
Csongor 17/09/17 18:11
My idea is something like this . In my opinion it would work with cordinates, but a placeable block can have even more posibilities. I gess it would be better a cubic generator like a gravity generator, it would allows u to set the area more precise.
HighGround 18/09/17 08:34
I was chatting on the Space Engineer sub-reddit the past few days and I think I have streamlined how a beacon can be used to control territory. - Beacon creates a ZoC (Zone of Control) of 50,000 meter - Mining restrictions Non-Owner/Fraction Member receives a 500% penalty to mining speed. - Building Restrictions Non-Owner/Fraction member can only build on grids they own within the ZoC. - Beacons must be powered. - Beacons have a high build cost. - Beacons have a high power usage. I think this would add some interesting changes to gameplay as it would allow the claiming of scarce ore deposits, Plus it would make attacking an enemy base harder, as you are restricted as to what you can do in Enemy Territory.
Shadows 18/09/17 15:16
@HighGround I agree with you. Maybe however allow the beacon to be adjustable. That way you can scout a couple good ore deposits, drop a base and lower the beacon (to reduce power usage) and claim less area. Plus on small worlds 50,000km would be rather large.
Radeth 27/09/17 18:49
There is already an almost identical suggestion (https://feedback.keenswh.com/idea/purpose-for-beacons5995ff573d849). It would be wise to merge them so that the votes add up.
FullSized 03/10/17 08:01
The idea of being able to "claim" an area to keep me from shooting you or grinding your stuff is retarded. If you can't protect your area you don't deserve it. 99.9% of the games area is so well hidden nobody could ever find you anyone. This is probably my biggest complain b/c I like the pvp. Still you want to now be completely safe in the last 0.1% too? Put up a turret or dig a hole to hide in. No pvp player will play on server that have anything like this running. If you want to keep pvp players off your server just put "NO PVP" in the title. Now you don't have to ruin the game by adding a vanilla protection beacon that has NO basis in reality. So far about the only thing that doesn't have a basis in reality is the jump drive but at least it is theoretical. Show us a scientific paper describing the theoretical possibility of an antenna that keeps people from building near it. Not unless its playing disco music and people just can't stand to be close to it. LMAO!
Shadows 03/10/17 15:12
@FullSized You clearly did not understand the idea of this at all. First of all, no-one is saying "No PVP", just no building/grinding/mining. As far as I am concerned a territory is a huge "I'm over here" flag telling players on a PVP server where you are located. If you have that much trouble finding people you are either terrible at searching for people or just flying through space with your eyes closed. Lastly I don't need a paper, there are these things called "maps". Look at the lines that separate areas on them, maybe you will start to get the idea.
FullSized 07/10/17 10:45
@Shadows are you retarded? or do you just want everyone to think you are. Building/ grinding/mining near someone elses base is PVP. You build a weapon platform to attack them. You grind their stuff to capture it or recycle it. Or while I don't like this tactic myself it is totally legit to tunnel under someones base to avoid some of the defenses. Only a lazy person who doesn't want to pvp and can't be bother to build adequate defenses would ask for immunity to that. If you can't handle pvp then stay in single player. Don't come on here stinging mud at me acting like I don't know what you are about. You couldn't be more obvious if you wore a sign. So own it. Just try and convince the developers that in a pvp game you should be able to build a antenna to make you immune to it. I grantee everyone will build one of those antennas first thing and pvp will be a thing of the past. Thats what you want so just admit it and try to talk them into it. It won't happen. But you can try.
Shadows 07/10/17 18:11
Are you 10 years old? Or are you just trying to to incite me to say something negative? Either way, I'v gone ahead and flagged your comment, as it is clearly not a real comment that deserves to be here. I'm surprised you are still not getting this simple idea. But let me try to help you understand because clearly you need all the help you can get. Just because I can build it does not mean it would make me immune to PvP. Considering it is just an idea that would need to be fleshed out means there is room for improvement. Perhaps it does not affect certain blocks (such as turrets, antenna or medical rooms) so that they can still be grinded down during an attack. Maybe it only affects mining to force the PvP aspec (e.g you cant just come and steal resources, you need to clear the base first). In this regard it would probably cause more PvP encounters. Yes, it would change the current PvP gameplay. I don't see why you think that is a bad thing. Most PvP encounters I see are not bases vs person anyways, It is typically ship vs ship combat or ship vs base. Not to mention this entire block could be set to a limited (e.g. block limit) so that it might not even be used. One last thing - these comments are intended for feedback and thoughts. If you don't approve of an idea, simply do not vote for it and leave a comment saying as much (if you feel so inclined). Personal attacks, and a overall general garbage attitude does not make you look good, it just makes you look like a comment troll. Regardless, I'll be refraining from reading anymore comments from you specifically.
FullSized 07/10/17 23:59
You have already said plenty negative. I don't need your help to understand yet another carebear attempt to insulate themselves in a pvp game. So stop imagining you are unique or this is a new idea. Go play minecraft so you can do multiplayer without pvp. Thats why it exist. SE is for people who are not afraid of a challenge from the environment or other players. Get it? Or do "I" need to spell it out for you.
xiojade 08/10/17 03:11
Guys... This isn't the place for a silly argument. Please take it elsewhere.
Mrjinx453 05/01/18 05:38
Well Medievil Engineers has this, im sure could be added easy enough. and i know a certan Malware once created a server i was on, that had 3 sectors owned by 3 diffrent factions. while it was short time running server, it was alot of fun :P
RowdyHusky 10/03/18 23:15
This idea is excellent for PVE servers, that way the building will be safe from other people, but for PVP servers isn't a good idea, instead, you could have like non-PVP zones controlled by no one (like pirate bases). So I think that this is a good idea, but for places like trading stations, places to make peace to talk safely with your enemies. The idea that I'm thinking this it's like sectors controlled by Concord in EVE Online, that way admins can establish zones controlled by this faction in which people must be neutral, if not they are going to be killed by this faction. So if it's implemented it should be different for each mode, like an option in the dedicated server -> "Territory Ownership just for admins" -> Yes | No