Station Vulnerability Timers: An alternative to Standard and Reverse FP configs

[Jasper1991]

As many people are aware, there is a glaring problem with PVP in StarMade, and that problem is nobody has any need to undock a ship when they are under attack at a homebase. This glaring problem is that battles are far and few.

When EE2.0 was announced, they had a solution to this problem that many other servers have adopted. Many of you refer to it as a Reverse Faction Point Config, for those who do not know how a reverse FP config works is simple in principle.

Rather than loosing FP for having multiple claimed systems, you now gain FP for having multiple claimed systems and having vulnerable home stations is an absolute requirement to maintain invulnerability in your main home station. If you run out of factions points for not having any stations for periods of time then your homebase becomes vulnerable to damage.

Now this has its benefits, it changes PVP from "We are being attacked everyone dock to the homebase and log off" to "We are being attacked everyone log on and get ready to counterattack"

This is turn creates a basis for PVP, no longer are prearranged battles necessary for content in the PVP element of StarMade.

But one of the biggest reasons I noticed for people not liking Reverse FP configs is a combination of several factors.

The most common argument against Reverse FP configs is "It requires someone to be constantly online to defend a factions territory"

Another common one is "This gives a advantage to factions who have more resources and can afford to deploy massive defensive claim stations"

And the final common argument that I want to address is "When someone has been undisturbed for a long time, an attacker may need to wait weeks for the homebase to become vulnerable and during this time the previously undisturbed faction can claim more systems"


These disadvantages are one of the primary reasons PVP servers do not adopt this configuration.

I would like to propose a solution to this problem

This solution will only require someone to have a homebase, no claim stations, it does not discriminate against players who cannot have someone online 24/7 and it actually gives benefits to players who have less resources and therefor a smaller homebase

Before I get into it I would like to clarify that anything in yellow indicates this is configurable in the server config files, red indicates this can be changed to suit Schine and that like all configs, only servers opt in to using this system will use it, it is not forced on a server.

I call this system

Station Timed Vulnerability System (hereafter refereed to as STVS)


The general idea of this is relatively simple to understand, when a station is spawned in you will use a slider or similar interface to select a vulnerability window, the bigger the station the bigger the vulnerability window is you have to set. Only during this window will a homebase be vulnerable to attack.


The specifics are a simple as well

When you press the spawn button on a station blueprint then you will be prompted to select a window of vulnerability, using a menu similar to this

This will allow you to set a time where most of your faction is available to defend it, so you will be able to defend but you will not need to be online 24/7 to defend, only during this vulnerability window.

To prevent smaller factions from being disadvantaged by larger factions with more resources the larger the station the bigger is vulnerability timer is a smaller faction that has less defensive capabilities will not have to defend their station for as long as a larger faction will.

The mass/blockcount will be used to determine the vulnerability timer of the station (this mass includes docked entities) how much mass will add how much time is configurable to this window in the server config (e.g 20 seconds per 1 one mass)

In effect larger more established factions will be vulnerable for much longer than smaller ones, so not only does this address the problem of lack of PVP and problems with reverse FP, but also addresses the issue of "Larger more established factions have an advantage over new ones"

So what do you guys think?
Expansion to my idea?
Constructive Critism?
Remarks?
Opinions?


EDIT:

I had some additional ideas, firstly a configurable minimum vulnerability timer on stations to prevent noobs using 1 block stations with half a second of vulnerability

I also had the idea of the server configs being allowed to state how often a station needs to come out of vulnerability, other than being locked to daily vulnerability why not have it configured to weekly, monthly, yearly or whatever the server admin chooses.

 

[Crashmaster]

How would the system handle setting the vulnerability window for stations that are built and not spawned?

Altering the vulnerability window's time possible? Associated cool-down?

Do you just poke an enemy station all day or is the vulnerability window available in the diplomacy tab?

 

[Jasper1991]

How would the system handle setting the vulnerability window for stations that are built and not spawned?

Altering the vulnerability window's time possible? Associated cool-down?

Do you just poke an enemy station all day or is the vulnerability window available in the diplomacy tab?

Valid points:

(Color codes apply just as they did in the thread)

When you spawn a station using whatever button you bind it to you will be prompted to set a timer, during during the time you build this vulnerability timer will get bigger as you add more mass/blocks (I think configs can be added to give server owners control over this as well)

If we were to give the ability to adjust this vulnerability window, a cooldown would be necessary otherwise you could just set the time to a period when you expect the enemy to leave when you get attacked. This cooldown should be set in the server configs.

Did not really think of the "How do I know when this is vulnerable" thing, I reckon you could either make use of the ship scanner or have it available via the diplomacy tab next to the homebase cords (EG [Coords of HB] Vulnerable in 2 hours and 35 minutes)

 

[Gonzalo]

As many people are aware, there is a glaring problem with PVP in StarMade, and that problem is nobody has any need to undock a ship when they are under attack at a homebase. This glaring problem is that battles are far and few.

When EE2.0 was announced, they had a solution to this problem that many other servers have adopted. Many of you refer to it as a Reverse Faction Point Config, for those who do not know how a reverse FP config works is simple in principle.

Rather than loosing FP for having multiple claimed systems, you now gain FP for having multiple claimed systems and having vulnerable home stations is an absolute requirement to maintain invulnerability in your main home station. If you run out of factions points for not having any stations for periods of time then your homebase becomes vulnerable to damage.

Now this has its benefits, it changes PVP from "We are being attacked everyone dock to the homebase and log off" to "We are being attacked everyone log on and get ready to counterattack"

This is turn creates a basis for PVP, no longer are prearranged battles necessary for content in the PVP element of StarMade.

But one of the biggest reasons I noticed for people not liking Reverse FP configs is a combination of several factors.

The most common argument against Reverse FP configs is "It requires someone to be constantly online to defend a factions territory"

Another common one is "This gives a advantage to factions who have more resources and can afford to deploy massive defensive claim stations"

And the final common argument that I want to address is "When someone has been undisturbed for a long time, an attacker may need to wait weeks for the homebase to become vulnerable and during this time the previously undisturbed faction can claim more systems"


These disadvantages are one of the primary reasons PVP servers do not adopt this configuration.

I would like to propose a solution to this problem

This solution will only require someone to have a homebase, no claim stations, it does not discriminate against players who cannot have someone online 24/7 and it actually gives benefits to players who have less resources and therefor a smaller homebase

Before I get into it I would like to clarify that anything in yellow indicates this is configurable in the server config files, red indicates this can be changed to suit Schine and that like all configs, only servers opt in to using this system will use it, it is not forced on a server.

I call this system

Station Timed Vulnerability System (hereafter refereed to as STVS)


The general idea of this is relatively simple to understand, when a station is spawned in you will use a slider or similar interface to select a vulnerability window, the bigger the station the bigger the vulnerability window is you have to set. Only during this window will a homebase be vulnerable to attack.


The specifics are a simple as well

When you press the spawn button on a station blueprint then you will be prompted to select a window of vulnerability, using a menu similar to this

This will allow you to set a time where most of your faction is available to defend it, so you will be able to defend but you will not need to be online 24/7 to defend, only during this vulnerability window.

To prevent smaller factions from being disadvantaged by larger factions with more resources the larger the station the bigger is vulnerability timer is a smaller faction that has less defensive capabilities will not have to defend their station for as long as a larger faction will.

The mass/blockcount will be used to determine the vulnerability timer of the station (this mass includes docked entities) how much mass will add how much time is configurable to this window in the server config (e.g 20 seconds per 1 one mass)

In effect larger more established factions will be vulnerable for much longer than smaller ones, so not only does this address the problem of lack of PVP and problems with reverse FP, but also addresses the issue of "Larger more established factions have an advantage over new ones"

So what do you guys think?
Expansion to my idea?
Constructive Critism?
Remarks?
Opinions?

awesome suggestion

 

[Jasper1991]

Just had the idea of having a minimum vulnerability timer on a station so that you cannot use a 1 block station that has half a second of invulnerability

 

[Lone_Puppy]

As many people are aware, there is a glaring problem with PVP in StarMade, and that problem is nobody has any need to undock a ship when they are under attack at a homebase. This glaring problem is that battles are far and few.

When EE2.0 was announced, they had a solution to this problem that many other servers have adopted. Many of you refer to it as a Reverse Faction Point Config, for those who do not know how a reverse FP config works is simple in principle.

Rather than loosing FP for having multiple claimed systems, you now gain FP for having multiple claimed systems and having vulnerable home stations is an absolute requirement to maintain invulnerability in your main home station. If you run out of factions points for not having any stations for periods of time then your homebase becomes vulnerable to damage.

Now this has its benefits, it changes PVP from "We are being attacked everyone dock to the homebase and log off" to "We are being attacked everyone log on and get ready to counterattack"

This is turn creates a basis for PVP, no longer are prearranged battles necessary for content in the PVP element of StarMade.

But one of the biggest reasons I noticed for people not liking Reverse FP configs is a combination of several factors.

The most common argument against Reverse FP configs is "It requires someone to be constantly online to defend a factions territory"

Another common one is "This gives a advantage to factions who have more resources and can afford to deploy massive defensive claim stations"

And the final common argument that I want to address is "When someone has been undisturbed for a long time, an attacker may need to wait weeks for the homebase to become vulnerable and during this time the previously undisturbed faction can claim more systems"


These disadvantages are one of the primary reasons PVP servers do not adopt this configuration.

I would like to propose a solution to this problem

This solution will only require someone to have a homebase, no claim stations, it does not discriminate against players who cannot have someone online 24/7 and it actually gives benefits to players who have less resources and therefor a smaller homebase

Before I get into it I would like to clarify that anything in yellow indicates this is configurable in the server config files, red indicates this can be changed to suit Schine and that like all configs, only servers opt in to using this system will use it, it is not forced on a server.

I call this system

Station Timed Vulnerability System (hereafter refereed to as STVS)


The general idea of this is relatively simple to understand, when a station is spawned in you will use a slider or similar interface to select a vulnerability window, the bigger the station the bigger the vulnerability window is you have to set. Only during this window will a homebase be vulnerable to attack.


The specifics are a simple as well

When you press the spawn button on a station blueprint then you will be prompted to select a window of vulnerability, using a menu similar to this

This will allow you to set a time where most of your faction is available to defend it, so you will be able to defend but you will not need to be online 24/7 to defend, only during this vulnerability window.

To prevent smaller factions from being disadvantaged by larger factions with more resources the larger the station the bigger is vulnerability timer is a smaller faction that has less defensive capabilities will not have to defend their station for as long as a larger faction will.

The mass/blockcount will be used to determine the vulnerability timer of the station (this mass includes docked entities) how much mass will add how much time is configurable to this window in the server config (e.g 20 seconds per 1 one mass)

In effect larger more established factions will be vulnerable for much longer than smaller ones, so not only does this address the problem of lack of PVP and problems with reverse FP, but also addresses the issue of "Larger more established factions have an advantage over new ones"

So what do you guys think?
Expansion to my idea?
Constructive Critism?
Remarks?
Opinions?

I took a different approach to using timers on faction bases, whether station or planet. I would have the bases protected while players offline, but when online that all changes. The protection drops when the timer reaches zero. And this is different for the homebase, versus bases further away.
Incentives to Expansion (Anti-Turtling)
I like your use of the mass and block count to determine vunerability count.

 

[Jasper1991]

I took a different approach to using timers on faction bases, whether station or planet. I would have the bases protected while players offline, but when online that all changes. The protection drops when the timer reaches zero. And this is different for the homebase, versus bases further away.
Incentives to Expansion (Anti-Turtling)
I like your use of the mass and block count to determine vunerability count.

Looked at your post and I find it interesting, I can see a few ideas that can be used to improve this one, however the only problem I noticed with your idea is the potential to just have every member log off when under attack, although your idea is very creative.

 

[Xskyth]

very good idea. however, it doesn't really address the problem of "Larger more established factions have an advantage over new ones". all they have to do is maintain a small station to get around that problem. maybe if the timer was based on number of faction members and station blocks?

Looked at your post and I find it interesting, I can see a few ideas that can be used to improve this one, however the only problem I noticed with your idea is the potential to just have every member log off when under attack, although your idea is very creative.

the partial workaround for this would be to keep the home base vulnerable for a set amount of time after all faction members log off, so a to encourage them to defend. and have the home base only become vulnerable if a faction member is online for 10 min, for example.

 

[Malacodor]

the partial workaround for this would be to keep the home base vulnerable for a set amount of time after all faction members log off

I'd never play on such a server.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

I think the issue with PVP that is mentioned in the other thread is where people have other commitments who want to play on PVP, but can't be there to defend their faction 24/7. Plus, if you're only just starting out in PVP, human/player reaver and pirate types would naturally prey on these new comers or weaker factions.

Looked at your post and I find it interesting, I can see a few ideas that can be used to improve this one, however the only problem I noticed with your idea is the potential to just have every member log off when under attack, although your idea is very creative.

Yeah, there is the issue of everybody logging off, but a penalty could be assigned. Perhaps a deduction of faction points per member online at the time within a specific time window. Say 30 mins to and hour.

This would trigger a decision on whether to continue to defend or retreat.

 

[Xskyth]

I'd never play on such a server.

i was thinking in the realm of maybe a couple minutes. enough time for some potential damage but, hopefully, not enough for you to loose everything. and the balance for this is that your base wont become vulnerable until faction members have been logged on for 10 min or so. that way you could pop back on tho see if it is safe again.

 

[Jasper1991]

very good idea. however, it doesn't really address the problem of "Larger more established factions have an advantage over new ones". all they have to do is maintain a small station to get around that problem. maybe if the timer was based on number of faction members and station blocks?

I was thinking of having the timer determined one or a combination these factors:
Station Blocks
Territory Claimed
Members of faction
Member count of allied factions
Entities docked to station

 

[Shaker]

Homebases should never be vulnerable to attack, outposts would suit your idea, but not the original base.

Stations currently cant protect themselves from ships that are built for taking them on, meaning that veteran players will easily put big holes in newer players cauing repairs even if they are defending.

Reverse FP is a good idea, but it needs a reason for gaining FP.

Anyways i think reverse FP is coming as there is noway those NPC factions can take that many systems of the galaxy

 

[Jasper1991]

Sorry for bumping this thread but I felt the need to address the points Shaker made

Homebases should never be vulnerable to attack, outposts would suit your idea, but not the original base.

Stations currently cant protect themselves from ships that are built for taking them on, meaning that veteran players will easily put big holes in newer players cauing repairs even if they are defending.

Reverse FP is a good idea, but it needs a reason for gaining FP.

Anyways i think reverse FP is coming as there is noway those NPC factions can take that many systems of the galaxy

"Stations currently cant protect themselves from ships that are built for taking them on"

That all depends on how the station is build, if you are able to get decent defenses on your station and some decent shields then stations are more than capable of defending themselves.


"veteran players will easily put big holes in newer players cauing repairs even if they are defending"

"Noob stations" as stated in this suggestion will have a much smaller time that they are vulnerable for, and this timer can be set for when a noob faction is able to be online and defend (e.g if their faction has a certain time that they are active during the day/week/whatever then they can set the timer to account for this)


"Reverse FP is a good idea, but it needs a reason for gaining FP."

Reverse FP configs currently provide a reason to gain RP, so I am confused by this statement


"Anyways i think reverse FP is coming as there is noway those NPC factions can take that many systems of the galaxy"

I think a dev blog mentioned something about NPC factions being able to expand, additionally reverse FP is already here, its not coming, once again I am confused by your reply
[doublepost=1481200745,1481200676][/doublepost]I also had the idea of the server configs allowing for this system to allow homebases to come out of vulnerability on a weekly, daily, montly or whatever the server owner wants for his server, not just have them be vulnerable daily

 

[Panpiper]

"Reverse FP is a good idea, but it needs a reason for gaining FP."

Reverse FP configs currently provide a reason to gain RP, so I am confused by this statement

I expect he means FP isn't used for much, so even with reverse FP, there's no real reason to risk your assets in order to gain more. If FP were used for things that were important and useful, 'then' there would be a reason to extend yourself, to put assets at risk in order to gain more FP.

What I am hoping is ultimately that FP will be used for both ship maintenance and crew recruiting. A single player faction will have enough native faction points to maintain a single station and a modestly sized ship or two, but that's about it. If they want more, they'll have to take a few risks, like claiming other systems with stations that are not invulnerable (the essence of reverse FP where such claimed systems then generate additional FP), or join a larger faction where such risks can be born by a larger number.

How I would handle homebase invulnerability were I the developer is that a homebase could be made invulnerable for a faction point cost. A single player faction would gain something like 12 faction points. (Obviously this would be timed somehow like 12 per hour, or whatever, as would the costs.) One FP would be needed to maintain a 100K ship, one to recruit a crew member each day, etc... Here's the kicker, it would cost ten to maintain a homebase's invulnerability. Brave players with a single player faction could elect to turn off their homebase invulnerability in order to use those faction points for other things, like quickly recruiting a large crew maybe. Turning off such invulnerability could be instantaneous, but turning it back on again would have some sort of a timer to it, a one hour delay or something to get invulnerability back.

However it is handled, it must be possible for any player to be able to dock their ship somewhere, somehow, in such a manner that it will be there when they next log on. In order to similarly protect accumulated resources, this is best achieved by a homebase that can be made permanently invulnerable by any single player. Anything that is done to force render such a single player's homebase 'not' permanently invulnerable will harm the playability of the game. Anything beyond that single homebase may well be fair game, but we cannot allow a situation that will permit a player being destroyed while off line unless they have deliberately decided to bear that risk.

 

[Jasper1991]

I expect he means FP isn't used for much, so even with reverse FP, there's no real reason to risk your assets in order to gain more. If FP were used for things that were important and useful, 'then' there would be a reason to extend yourself, to put assets at risk in order to gain more FP.

[More Text]

However it is handled, it must be possible for any player to be able to dock their ship somewhere, somehow, in such a manner that it will be there when they next log on. In order to similarly protect accumulated resources, this is best achieved by a homebase that can be made permanently invulnerable by any single player. Anything that is done to force render such a single player's homebase 'not' permanently invulnerable will harm the playability of the game. Anything beyond that single homebase may well be fair game, but we cannot allow a situation that will permit a player being destroyed while off line unless they have deliberately decided to bear that risk.

In servers you have to have FP in order to maintain your homebase, while I do agree we need more uses, allowing you homebase to remain invincible is pretty significant

In regards to the "Anything that is done to force render such a single player's homebase 'not' permanently invulnerable will harm the playability of the game"


I would suggest you consider the other side, the game is much more harmed by people turtling at their homebases and never undocking because "Oh look I am under attack, oh well they cannot do any damage so I will just log off until they get bored and leave" then it would be "harmed" by people actually needing to undock for once assuming any harm is done by this at all.

And if servers still want single base turlting gameplay they can, like reverse fp configs, this suggestion is opt in it will not be forced on servers so if a player does not want gameplay where they have to undock and protect their shit when they are attacked then can simply play on a server that does not have a reverse fp or STVS config, they are not obligated to play on servers where they do not like the gameplay the server admins want to encourage.

Additionally, half the point of this suggestion was to have the station vulnerable during the time a player is capable of defending it by use of a selected "vulnerability time window" when the player spawns in their station

 

[Panpiper]

Creating a system that permits people to be destroyed, that essentially does away with homebase invulnerability, would mean that anyone could be steamrollered. All it would take is for one player with a titan to hop through the server visiting every claimed system and they could literally destroy everyone and everything that could not stop said titan in it's tracks, which would be virtually everyone on a server. And that there, would be the end of the server. The game would be a race for the biggest newbie brick as fast as possible, and that's it. All else would be completely moot, as doing 'anything else' other than mining like a maniac so as to slap more blocks onto your battlecube would harm your survivability.

Most emphatically, make any such server setting optional, so one or two servers could try it for the few days necessary to discover that it does not work (for the above reasons) and then go back to allowing people to turtle.

Turtling does NOT harm the game by the way. It just means that those who want to steamroller everyone in sight cannot do so. It destroys the fun of griefers. Oh darn.

The game is not done. The part of the game that will give people reasons to fight are not in the game yet. When we have reverse FP (non-invulnerable stations), ship maintenance, automated mining, etc., then there will be plenty of potential for fighting. Forcing people now, who simply want a social environment in which to build and play into fighting fights they frankly wouldn't have a prayer of winning, is NOT the way to address the current lack of fighting. Finishing the planned game is.

 

[kulbolen]

mass caps prevent newb bricks from taking over servers, because better engineered ships of the same mass will DOMINATE them. also theres a lot of fun to be had playing without homebases and moving around or hiding.

 

[aRottenKomquat]

What if we switched to reverse FP and had a system allowing you to use FP to make stations invulnerable? Your homebase is still safe for free, but to make additional stations safe you need to build and place an expensive block which consumes FP to make that station safe as well. As a counter, the amount of FP drain required to do this should be greater than the FP gain for claiming a system, so it is impossible to make all your stations safe, leaving a way for someone to chip at your territory (and thus FP income) and eventually make stations vulnerable again.

 

[Jasper1991]

Creating a system that permits people to be destroyed, that essentially does away with homebase invulnerability, would mean that anyone could be steamrollered. All it would take is for one player with a titan to hop through the server visiting every claimed system and they could literally destroy everyone and everything that could not stop said titan in it's tracks, which would be virtually everyone on a server. And that there, would be the end of the server. The game would be a race for the biggest newbie brick as fast as possible, and that's it. All else would be completely moot, as doing 'anything else' other than mining like a maniac so as to slap more blocks onto your battlecube would harm your survivability.

Most emphatically, make any such server setting optional, so one or two servers could try it for the few days necessary to discover that it does not work (for the above reasons) and then go back to allowing people to turtle.

Turtling does NOT harm the game by the way. It just means that those who want to steamroller everyone in sight cannot do so. It destroys the fun of griefers. Oh darn.

The game is not done. The part of the game that will give people reasons to fight are not in the game yet. When we have reverse FP (non-invulnerable stations), ship maintenance, automated mining, etc., then there will be plenty of potential for fighting. Forcing people now, who simply want a social environment in which to build and play into fighting fights they frankly wouldn't have a prayer of winning, is NOT the way to address the current lack of fighting. Finishing the planned game is.

We already have reverse fp, I am not sure what is making you say "When we have reverse FP" its already in the game, its not a perfect system, hence why I had this idea of an STVS system.

Also, the statement "Turtling does NOT harm the game by the way" combined with your use of the word "griefing" kinda gives me the impression you are not the kind of PvP player this suggestion is directed at, if that is the case then this suggestion is not directed at you, I am making this suggestion for people who want this game to have a decent PvP combat system.

What I do not understand is why you would prefer a form of gameplay where nobody ever undocks from their base and docks up and logs off when attacked, that is very harmful to the games PvP community (which this suggestion is being directed at) over a system that forces people to undock if they become under attack (Reverse FP) or a system where homebases are invulnerable except for when people are able to be online to defend it (STVS)