Planet Hopping [ A Custom Game Mode ]

[Saxopi]

Spoiler: Preface

So while browsing the forums today I came across this topic, and for the most part agreed with OP for once. But in retrospect you're playing a Minecraft - inspired game here, and looking back you might realize that you could answer your own question by taking a look at the state of Minecraft and how millions of players sustained their interest in the game for so long; Community Content.

It's even on top of the forums and is the very essence of sandbox games as a matter of fact. The freedom to create and share the things you made ( mods, maps, texture packs, game modes, roleplay, etc. ) within a game that has a set of objects and elements allows the game to go beyond the confines of its intended environment it is given to run in.

The topic also made me dig up a small little idea I had back in April, and so in the spirit of Community Content I present it to you.

This is a game mode idea I had, PLANET HOPPING.

A mix of MOBA, RTS, FPS and Tower Defense elements, Planet Hopping is a match played between two teams, where they are to defend a number of planets and capture the same number of planets across multiple sectors.

Each team is given a set amount of ships, composed of one (1) Motherships, three (3) Cruisers, five (5) Frigates/Dreadnoughts, eight (8) Fighters and two or three Medic/Dropship/Repair Drones.

The goal is the Capture all planets that belong to the enemy or Destroy the enemy mothership.

A little something I drew up back in April​

MAP

The match is played in three-dimensional space (obviously), with dimensions of 60(l)x56(w)x36(h) sectors (I was playing with a max speed of 100mph while I was thinking this up so I have no idea how balances this map size is). Each team has five (5) planets to defend, and five planets to capture if they could,and divided into two sections of the map, a section for each team to set up and defend.

Ideally the map is bounded by an invisible wall. But given the limitations of object parameters, the map is to be bounded by plexiglass in the absence of that.

*Ideally, the planets all line up in one plane, but that orientation denies any form of strategics or tactics (and end up having bunch of ships just camp and shoot at every planet from atop the map).

*Planet placement may be random or fixed, I'm not entirely sure which is best, but I like to go with a parabolic map. All planets in one side of the map form a parabolic shape, and the central axis of the map the directrix. The shape of a parabola is formed in such a way that every point in the parabola is equidistant to the center and to the directrix.

here's an interpretation.​

* The last two planets at the back of the map are equipped with Planetary Fortresses, multi - turret stations that fires missiles.

*Throughout the map are asteroid fields that contain ore that can be converted to credits that can be used to purchase upgrades. More on this later.

SHIPS

Ships are a team's primary mode of dealing damage. Keeping ships alive and ugrading their weapons are essential for victory.

Mothership
Motherships are intended to be very powerful and require coordination and teamwork to destroy, and equipped with the most OP weapons in the game, since destroying them would win you the game.

Cruisers
Intended to be powerful ships that carry a shitton of firepower, but still weak enough to be countered with precision and numbers.

Frigates/Dreadnoughts
Intended to be support attack ships that do not deal as much damage as Cruisers, but still reliable for their mobility and accuracy.

Fighters
Intended to be fairly weak and fragile ships, but in the hands of skilled pilots even a few of these can take out a few frigates and maybe even a cruiser. Mostly serves as scout ships and support attach ships when frigates are unavailable.

Medics/ Dropships/ Repair Drones
Intended to be exclusively support ships that are only equipped with elements which their purpose entails them to be. They can serve a number of utilities, such as boarding parties, ship repairing, healing, among other things. Also intended to be fragile units that must be kept alive if your ships get fucked on a regular basis.

Planetary Fortresses
Not ships but more or less a team's base. Planetary fortresses are intended to be heavily armored stations that serve as a repair and refitting station. Equipped with two missile turrets for defense, destroying a planetary fortress weakens the protective shield of a mothership, allowing it to be destroyed.

*The number of ships for each class may change, since I'm not very good at balancing shit.

*Although block count may not matter (I am referring to hull blocks), Each ship must be balanced to each team at the start of the game (Shields, Weapons, Speed, Credits). Weapon upgrades become available as the game progresses (How that can be achieved I don't know, but I'm sure something can be worked out).

*Fighters and Frigates respawn, but lose any weapon upgrades they had. Cruisers, Drones and Planetary Fortresses are permanently taken out of play once eliminated.

PLANETS AND CELESTIAL BODIES

Each team has five (5) planets to defend, two of which are planetary fortresses which serve as the team's base. Each planet may contain ores that can be mined for credits. While planets can be mined this may make a team's faction block vulnerable to destruction.

Planets are captured by placing a faction block on six (6) of the twelve (12) segments that make up a planet, or by destroying all the faction blocks of the enemy team on a planet.

Throughout the map are asteroids and abandoned stations and ships that may also be salvaged of useful items or converted to credits.

On each side of the map is a shop for purchasing upgrades and possible repairing as well. Shops may not be destroyed and must not be anywhere near either of the two team's planets.


RULES AND MECHANICS

A few things that set the standards for the game:

Each player is assigned to a ship. A large ship such as the mothership may require more than one player to man, but a player cannot proxy another player (playing the match on two computers and playing as two players).

Each player has a set amount of credits. Credits are used to purchase upgrades or improvements. Each ship killed, planet captured or ore mined grants credits.

The game ends if all planets are captured or the mothership is destroyed. However, a mothership can only be destroyed if the enemy has captured at least three planets of the other team.

Absolutely no cheating.

____

This is all for now. This will obviously change for balancing reasons, but this article is only so that I can share my idea. Hope you enjoy.

 

[Saber]

I love the idea of a long term planetary capture/space game with plenty of room to work with, however I'm worried that with that many planets, and that much room, the games would take a long, long time. Also you would need a huge number of players, otherwise you might not even see an enemy for hours on end.

There's also an issue with navigation, unless you locked down every surrounding the game field it would be easy to get lost, or find yourself outside the play field. I think a good idea would be to start out small with this, do a prototype, maybe two planets per team in a fairly small area (less than 10x10x10 sectors) then if it works you can ramp it up from there. =)

 

[Ozwart]

Great idea
I want more for starmade than just blowing other people stuff when they are offline.
So im supporting that kind of idea.

But like said previously 7 planet to defend and conquer is a lot.
4 would be ebough for team of about 10 players.
Maybe your are aiming for larger team , that i dont know
The other way would be using the world in conflict game type , several objectif but one team attack the other defend and they exchange place after in a 2 of 3 or 4 of 7 series of match

 

[Saxopi]

Addendum: Just edited the post:

Changed the number of planets ( From 7 to 5)
Changed base capturing mechanic
Added some map elements

I'm very much eager to test this out so if you're interested in helping me hit the topic up with a like to show some support.

 

[NeonSturm]

I think there should be 3 planets per team.

Because if you only have one, everybody would stick to it.
If you have two, players would make defense for one and most stick to the other.

But with 3, you have to invest far more in defense as in offense required to overwhelm defense.
(you even would have with 2 as they have 6 sides, but you might share shields, power, 3 is more save)​

Then you have to ask yourself:

1. What is the fastest way to make credits?
2. What will keep players to always use these fastest few ways? (don't expect to find 1/8 players in 10x10x10 = 1000 sectors)
3. What keeps 8 players from bullying the strongest 1..3 enemies?
4. Which rock-paper-scissor mechanisms are in-game?
5. Is there any well (translator also suggests: spring|fountain|font) which beats rock _and_ scissor but is beaten by just paper?
6. If peoples only use paper > well > scissor > paper, who would use rock?

 

[Saxopi]

I think there should be 3 planets per team.

Because if you only have one, everybody would stick to it.
If you have two, players would make defense for one and most stick to the other.

But with 3, you have to invest far more in defense as in offense required to overwhelm defense.
(you even would have with 2 as they have 6 sides, but you might share shields, power, 3 is more save)​

I've no idea how to interpret your last sentence, but let me explain to you my reasons for having 5 planets.

In Dota 2 (or practically any MOBA for that matter), there are three lanes that lead to the team's Ancient (a structure that when destroyed, will win you the game). Each lane has three towers that attack any enemy on sight, and you can't destroy a tower if you haven't destroyed the tower that succeeds it. As such, in order to "push" towards an enemy's ancient, you have to destroy all three towers on any lane (and the two last towers that defend the ancient itself).

Space is devoid of any pre-defined lanes or forests or alleyways or choke points to set up ganks and ambushes, so in the case of Planet Hopping, I've opted to have one planet, preceded by two planets, and then finally preceded by two heavily fortified planets, which employs the same pushing tactic albiet much less 'strategics-demanding'. The team is required to capture a planet before moving on to the next planet closer to the team's base. This encourages constant pushing and defending from each team, and relies only on some sort of tactical advantage over the enemy in order to drive them away from their planet or decimate them completely.

Usually early game is when each team has the critical decision to either defend or attack. If the enemy manages to destroy your first planet, now you have two planets to defend. If you manage to destroy their first planet, now you have two planets to deal with, in which both cases critical decision-making on whether to push or defend still matters. Mid-game is where you invest your resources on those defense or offense decisions, and late game would be trying your best to win the match.

It's all about planning and execution in the end. It won't matter if you have six or seven or eight planets to capture if you have the best weapons and tactics in the match because the other team was too busy mining asteroids and such.​

Then you have to ask yourself:

1. What is the fastest way to make credits?
2. What will keep players to always use these fastest few ways? (don't expect to find 1/8 players in 10x10x10 = 1000 sectors)
3. What keeps 8 players from bullying the strongest 1..3 enemies?
4. Which rock-paper-scissor mechanisms are in-game?
5. Is there any well (translator also suggests: spring|fountain|font) which beats rock _and_ scissor but is beaten by just paper?
6. If peoples only use paper > well > scissor > paper, who would use rock?

1. Mining, clearly. You have to balance the time it takes for you to mine minerals and the time it takes to get to one planet. This is usually achieved early in the game, where in RTS games like Starcraft II, a person is more intent in building up their economy and their army early game than just outright attacking with the measly units they have. Each tick of the clock counts.

This also gives me the idea of employing warp gates to get from one point to another. These may require credits to run and have a limited number of uses, lest we have them being abused.

2. I'm not good at balancing shit, so when I was testing the map out I was going quite fast and assumed a ship can find another ship and relay that enemy ship's location to their teammates if all scouts assumed scouting on each lane of 10 sectors each. I will have to resize the play field, so thank you for pointing that out.

The map will have to be small enough that it doesn't take hours to scout a region of the map, but large enough to allow a team to set up positioning and relaying of information before the enemy team gets to them.

3. The rest of the team of course. If your corsairs of cruisers are a constant target to fighters and such, then do something about it, because crying about it won't solve it. Always be on the guard.

4. Rock - Paper -Scissors is a 'game' of chance, where the resulting 'winner' purely wins by luck, unless you can read your opponent's mind. I've no idea what you mean by this but if you mean that there should exist in-game a mechanic that relies purely on luck then there's no point in any planning or strategics whatsoever.

5. Sorry, but could you please rephrase that without the 'rock-paper-scissor' analogy?

6. Sorry, but could you please rephrase that without the 'rock-paper-scissor' analogy?

 

[NeonSturm]

4. Rock - Paper -Scissors is a 'game' of chance, where the resulting 'winner' purely wins by luck, unless you can read your opponent's mind. I've no idea what you mean by this but if you mean that there should exist in-game a mechanic that relies purely on luck then there's no point in any planning or strategics whatsoever.

5. Sorry, but could you please rephrase that without the 'rock-paper-scissor' analogy?

6. Sorry, but could you please rephrase that without the 'rock-paper-scissor' analogy?

Take Farming for a better late game is rock
Take Ambushing Farmers for making them lose money advantage as paper
Take "Stay as group and Ambush the ambusher" as scissor.
Take "Strategy : out-farming a group waiting for a never coming ambush" as rock.

It is always a game of luck.
_ How are your team-mates doing?
_ Did you choose the right strategy or did the enemy decide luckily for a counter to your strategy without exactly knowing it gonna win him the game.


(I played Dota2 too) Usually the team which first gets a double-kill on one lane due to the mid-player going top/bottom will have a higher chance to win.
If then all teleport top, most -not even newbies anymore- players are very surprised regardless how often you tell them they will gank - and your team loses.

I lost in Dota2 more matches due to disconnects, crashes and mobbing while my team expects me alone to hold vs 3 than because I played bad.

 

[Mered4]

I've no idea how to interpret your last sentence, but let me explain to you my reasons for having 5 planets.

In Dota 2 (or practically any MOBA for that matter), there are three lanes that lead to the team's Ancient (a structure that when destroyed, will win you the game). Each lane has three towers that attack any enemy on sight, and you can't destroy a tower if you haven't destroyed the tower that succeeds it. As such, in order to "push" towards an enemy's ancient, you have to destroy all three towers on any lane (and the two last towers that defend the ancient itself).

Space is devoid of any pre-defined lanes or forests or alleyways or choke points to set up ganks and ambushes, so in the case of Planet Hopping, I've opted to have one planet, preceded by two planets, and then finally preceded by two heavily fortified planets, which employs the same pushing tactic albiet much less 'strategics-demanding'. The team is required to capture a planet before moving on to the next planet closer to the team's base. This encourages constant pushing and defending from each team, and relies only on some sort of tactical advantage over the enemy in order to drive them away from their planet or decimate them completely.

Usually early game is when each team has the critical decision to either defend or attack. If the enemy manages to destroy your first planet, now you have two planets to defend. If you manage to destroy their first planet, now you have two planets to deal with, in which both cases critical decision-making on whether to push or defend still matters. Mid-game is where you invest your resources on those defense or offense decisions, and late game would be trying your best to win the match.

It's all about planning and execution in the end. It won't matter if you have six or seven or eight planets to capture if you have the best weapons and tactics in the match because the other team was too busy mining asteroids and such.​

1. Mining, clearly. You have to balance the time it takes for you to mine minerals and the time it takes to get to one planet. This is usually achieved early in the game, where in RTS games like Starcraft II, a person is more intent in building up their economy and their army early game than just outright attacking with the measly units they have. Each tick of the clock counts.

This also gives me the idea of employing warp gates to get from one point to another. These may require credits to run and have a limited number of uses, lest we have them being abused.

2. I'm not good at balancing shit, so when I was testing the map out I was going quite fast and assumed a ship can find another ship and relay that enemy ship's location to their teammates if all scouts assumed scouting on each lane of 10 sectors each. I will have to resize the play field, so thank you for pointing that out.

The map will have to be small enough that it doesn't take hours to scout a region of the map, but large enough to allow a team to set up positioning and relaying of information before the enemy team gets to them.

3. The rest of the team of course. If your corsairs of cruisers are a constant target to fighters and such, then do something about it, because crying about it won't solve it. Always be on the guard.

4. Rock - Paper -Scissors is a 'game' of chance, where the resulting 'winner' purely wins by luck, unless you can read your opponent's mind. I've no idea what you mean by this but if you mean that there should exist in-game a mechanic that relies purely on luck then there's no point in any planning or strategics whatsoever.

5. Sorry, but could you please rephrase that without the 'rock-paper-scissor' analogy?

6. Sorry, but could you please rephrase that without the 'rock-paper-scissor' analogy?

The word MOBA just made me want to puke.

If you have to direct players down a path to drag things out for *strategical* reasons, don't. It's bad game design and frankly, is boring as hell from a strategical standpoint. There's plenty of room for push and pull between planets. We are in space, after all.

Saw a quote from a smart/wise person once: "Static defenses are a testament to the stupidity of man."
They sure can lead to epic battles, but in a space this vast, we'll need around three or four chokepoints, not 7 or 15.

All that aside, I love the idea. Having a brainstorm. I'll sleep on this and get back to you.

 

[NeonSturm]

There's plenty of room for push and pull between planets. We are in space, after all.

With FTL yes. Cool-down could be very nice if you could choose sector coordinates and have long-range sensors displaying everything in a whole system.

IRL (current tech) you would require the slingshot mechanism to increase|decrease your speed enough for traveling with cryostasis pods. This creates space-lanes.

 

[BeefBacon]

How about a victory point system to speed things along? Each planet held generates victory points (or depletes the opposition's). Destroying ships, dependent on class, also generates (or depletes, depending on the system) victory points. Reaching, say, 500 (or hitting 0) means a win. Destroying the mothership is an automatic win.

Not sure how this could be enforced (unless it was turned into a full-fledged gamemode) but it'd encourage counter-attacking should one team gain the upper hand.

 

[NeonSturm]

How about a victory point system to speed things along? Each planet held generates victory points (or depletes the opposition's). Destroying ships, dependent on class, also generates (or depletes, depending on the system) victory points. Reaching, say, 500 (or hitting 0) means a win. Destroying the mothership is an automatic win.

Not sure how this could be enforced (unless it was turned into a full-fledged gamemode) but it'd encourage counter-attacking should one team gain the upper hand.

Either nice or game-breaking.

Game-breaking because it may give one side an advantage increasing over time and encourage avoiding conflicts to win.

I'd say that the side with 20% more victory points should win ((Also require a minimal amount to make the first point not win the game -- if not points of alive objects are counted, but points of destroyed objects.))

 

[BeefBacon]

Either nice or game-breaking.

Game-breaking because it may give one side an advantage increasing over time and encourage avoiding conflicts to win.

I'd say that the side with 20% more victory points should win ((Also require a minimal amount to make the first point not win the game -- if not points of alive objects are counted, but points of destroyed objects.))

But that's exactly the point. If one team has 3 planets and the other has 2, then the faction with 3 planets will start to win. This means that the team that is at a disadvantage will need to attack in order to balance things out again. Of course, the more territory you control the more you have to defend, so as a team gains momentum their planets will be largely undefended - thus the other team can easily take them and redress the balance. As one team starts to win, they become easier to attack because their forces will be spread thin. It'd actively encourage interaction, rather than discourage it.

Though you may be right that the first to a set number of points may not be the right way to go about it. Rather, it may be more appropriate to have it as "the first to X number of points more than the other team".