Universe Patch Brainstorming: Incentives Against Turtling?

JinM · Jul 15, 2018

Edymnion said:
treating stations the way we currently do ships. If you want a ship that can mine, fly around, get into fights, and do everything, you can. (...) you need chambers to specialize them.

I think this is a great idea.

Besides some mining sector chambers for stations, and the obvious refining and production specialisation chambers I would add the following:

Trading (some sort of additional income if people buy or sell stuff)
Repairing and Ship Building (maybe have it cost less or make it it an auto repair AOE spell ^^)
Ship trading (the bigger the chamber the bigger the ships you can trade?)
AI command (be able to send fleets with advanced orders, for example patrols,)

The only and most important additional gamemechanic that needs to be added: You can't switch from one specialisation chamber to another or switch reactors quickly. Lets say 30 minutes downtime for all chambers if you want to switch from one specialisation to another

- If that's not there players will have just all the chambers on one station, and then switcharoo around. But it's not needed to force to player into deciding right from the start what specialisation he wants: The downtime and the huge cost for having more than one specialisation chamber type on a station is enough encouragement to fly to another station. Multi chambers stations don't need to be prevented, it only needs to be attractive enough to use a seperate station for another specilisation, for example if it takes longer to switch between chambers then it takes to fly to another station or spawn in a specialised new station one sector away.

NTIMESc · Jul 15, 2018

OfficialCoding said:
The problem with this is it is then not possible to destroy factions. In The Last Jedi, The Resistance couldn't just plop down a faction module on Crait and then have it be invulnerable. No, things aren't invulnerable. All entities must be able to be destroyed

This is a game, not real life. When I want this feature, I join a server tailored to that play style with other like-minded players.

Edymnion said:
Hell, if we wanna get even more "you gotta specialize", make the HB invulnerability a chamber effect that you can only have active on one base at a time. That way you can have invincibility, but thats about all you can have. You can be safe, or you can be productive on a large scale, can't do both, that would be okay with me.

I'm completely against removing HB protection, but this is the first reasonable idea I've read. Although, I think it might be better to just disable all chamber effects on stations marked as homebase. Of course, it should also have a delay to enable protection and a warning prompt before turning it off, to minimize exploiting it.

But, in the end, I think it's fine the way it is currently, and the turtling "problem" really a factor of the small player base and there not really being much to do besides build or fight. I really have no interest in coaxing someone who likes to build into a fight, any more than I want to give someone who likes to fight an incentive to build. For players who only enjoy fighting, would it make sense to eliminate blueprint spawning as a way to encourage them to spend more time building?
The game is for the player's enjoyment. If there is not enough fighting in the game it's because there are not enough players who enjoy what the game offers in that respect.

But, back to the OP, of incentives against turtling:

Resource scarcity is number one. Of course you can always use Amazon's Interstellar Prime to get what you need, provided you have the credits. This would require that credits stop growing on Stick Shops.
Points of Interest: This is planned. If there is enough variety, and they are compelling, more people will venture out safety to see the Galactic Grand Canyon.
Quests: Something to do.
Protection: Where is the Galactic Space Patrol when you need them? But this would require some serious AI and a robust set of rules for determining when to blast a player pirate out of the sky. For this to be even remotely effective, the player would have to be able to call for help, and have a GSP Titan warp in instantly with their patented Infinite Jump Inhibitor and Sector-wide Stasis Field Generator. And this still wouldn't stop griefers.

Until some or all of the above are added, I think it's best just to leave it the way it is.

Matt_Bradock · Jul 15, 2018

OfficialCoding said:
The problem with this is it is then not possible to destroy factions. In The Last Jedi, The Resistance couldn't just plop down a faction module on Crait and then have it be invulnerable. No, things aren't invulnerable. All entities must be able to be destroyed

I dare you to go get ARK and play on an official PvP server, preferably one that already has one established alpha tribe, for just one week, and come back and tell me whether you had fun logging on every single goddamn day to just find that everything you and your friends built, every asset, every resource, is gone. Because that's how it is when everything can be destroyed, and there's not even offline protection. I didn't appreciate the Starmade homebase invulnerability until I played ARK and put well over a thousand hours in it without ever getting close to late game unless I played on a PvE server or single player.

OfficialCoding · Jul 15, 2018

Matt_Bradock said:
I dare you to go get ARK and play on an official PvP server, preferably one that already has one established alpha tribe, for just one week, and come back and tell me whether you had fun logging on every single goddamn day to just find that everything you and your friends built, every asset, every resource, is gone. Because that's how it is when everything can be destroyed, and there's not even offline protection. I didn't appreciate the Starmade homebase invulnerability until I played ARK and put well over a thousand hours in it without ever getting close to late game unless I played on a PvE server or single player.

ARK is $60 USD from Steam. There is no way I'm dropping that.
You do have offline protection - fighters with a bobby ai module on them. In Starmade you can also jump out to the middle of nowhere, build up your empire without claiming any systems, and the odds are you will never be found, at least not until you have suitable defenses. Therefore, removing HB invulnerability would not make it impossible to start on a server. It would, however, lead to people spreading out in the galaxy, and thus giving players more incentives to fly around and see what they can discover.

Edymnion · Jul 16, 2018

Matt_Bradock said:
I dare you to go get ARK and play on an official PvP server, preferably one that already has one established alpha tribe, for just one week, and come back and tell me whether you had fun logging on every single goddamn day to just find that everything you and your friends built, every asset, every resource, is gone. Because that's how it is when everything can be destroyed, and there's not even offline protection. I didn't appreciate the Starmade homebase invulnerability until I played ARK and put well over a thousand hours in it without ever getting close to late game unless I played on a PvE server or single player.

Yup, everybody thinks it'll be fine, but they rarely have any first hand experience with a game where they aren't protected, or aren't some little nobody that even as a face in the crowd they don't stand out enough to be targeted.

wiesshund · Jul 16, 2018

Tolnorus said:
or at least volumes of space tagged for PVP with other untagged spaces being no-PVP by default.

The server i used to play on sometimes was set up like that, one set of warp gates from the home sector went to non PVP areas, the other went to open PVP

MacThule · Jul 16, 2018

Edymnion said:
Again, I don't think PUNISHING a player is a good idea here. Removing options that we already have is going to feel really terrible.

Instead, again IMO, we should be treating stations the way we currently do ships. If you want a ship that can mine, fly around, get into fights, and do everything, you can. Its not going to be very good at it, but you can do it. But if you want a ship that is actually GOOD at what it does, you need chambers to specialize them.

I really do think that is the best answer for stations as well. Give them base capabilities, but then make chambers for everything so that if you want more than basic capability, you need a chamber for it. Which means, if properly balanced, you can only have a station that is good at one thing. Sure, you can have 10,000 factory enhancers on there and make tons of stuff, but this station over here is 1/10th the size and can do just as much because it has dedicated factory chambers. Oh, you got a million units of storage? Thats great, its huge, and this one over here is not only 1/10th the size but has built in logic support filtering and rapid asset management capabilities you don't have.

Let a single station do everything... poorly.

Hell, if we wanna get even more "you gotta specialize", make the HB invulnerability a chamber effect that you can only have active on one base at a time. That way you can have invincibility, but thats about all you can have. You can be safe, or you can be productive on a large scale, can't do both, that would be okay with me.

Those who want 100% safety can have it, they just won't advance as quickly and will require a lot more effort to maintain. Those who are willing to take the greater risks will get greater rewards.
You shouldn't be allowed to destroy a faction in the first place.

This isn't Civ where last man standing wins. Its a coop multiplayer game. You as a PLAYER on a server are NOT allowed to soft ban people from the server by destroying their faction to the point they can't rebuild. Only the server owner and admins should be allowed to say who can or cannot play on the server.

Total War must NOT be an option.

Well, I disagree about total war and faction death - I think those should be optional from server to server. The game is a "sandbox space shooter," it's not necessarily coop or civ, but a good sandbox should be able to be modded to serve either audience.

I really, really like the idea of making HB invulnerability a special chamber effect that costs like 50% RC.

I think that "punishment" has a specific definition, and changes to game dynamics are a stretch to apply it to (otherwise literally every balance change is going to be seen by someone as "punishment," much as stability and integrity were seen as a kind of punishment when the beta systems were rolled out). My biggest beef with HB invulnerability though is that it's simultaneously infinite in capacity, infinite duration and completely free in every meaningful way. At least making it cost something in terms of RC would be a substantial step in the right direction.

Tolnorus · Jul 16, 2018

MacThule said:
Well, I disagree about total war and faction death - I think those should be optional from server to server. The game is a "sandbox space shooter," it's not necessarily coop or civ, but a good sandbox should be able to be modded to serve either audience.

Yes, let's keep our eye on the ball. This is a sandbox game and should be flexible to the styles of different groups. People who don't want a feature on a particular server need the power to toggle it, especially anything involving PVP.

MacThule said:
I really, really like the idea of making HB invulnerability a special chamber effect that costs like 50% RC.

My biggest beef with HB invulnerability though is that it's simultaneously infinite in capacity, infinite duration and completely free in every meaningful way. At least making it cost something in terms of RC would be a substantial step in the right direction.

This is an interesting idea, but I have concerns about execution. Considering the fact that chamber features depend on reactor size, this would mean that, in order to be safe during base construction, step one is to spawn a station, place 1 reactor block, place 1 chamber, and configure the reactor for HomeBase protection. Then you can proceed with construction safely, but at some point you're going to want to upgrade that 1-block reactor, and changing it creates a window of vulnerability as you install the new reactor, its stabilizers, and its chambers. This is not a task that can be done with a single (or even just a few) clicks.

I would rather see an implementation where protection is active by default but can be deactivated in order to access other features. Maybe give stations a RC limit of 50% that can be removed by disabling HomeBase invulnerability. How about a PVP block that you can add to your structure to tag it as a participant in PVP, thus accessing a set of properties that are only meaningful in PVP? Regardless, I would want to see this entire feature be completely disabled as a server option, so that the existing mechanism of HomeBase invulnerability can be used.

And in the end, if third-party modification remains flexible, anyone who decides that the PVP rules need adjustment, or wants to eliminate PVP, will just make a clever mod to reconfigure the rules. And if PVP is entirely removed, someone will just create a mod to introduce PVP. The only sensible choice is to provide all the tools for both options in the base game and provide server options to select the style, allowing users to choose what kind of StarMade experience they want.

Edymnion · Jul 16, 2018

Tolnorus said:
Considering the fact that chamber features depend on reactor size, this would mean that, in order to be safe during base construction, step one is to spawn a station, place 1 reactor block, place 1 chamber, and configure the reactor for HomeBase protection. Then you can proceed with construction safely, but at some point you're going to want to upgrade that 1-block reactor, and changing it creates a window of vulnerability as you install the new reactor, its stabilizers, and its chambers. This is not a task that can be done with a single (or even just a few) clicks.

I would rather see an implementation where protection is active by default but can be deactivated in order to access other features. Maybe give stations a RC limit of 50% that can be removed by disabling HomeBase invulnerability.

I could see that. Have invincible home bases be designated the same way they are now, but have it drop chamber availability to 50% automatically. You could then have chambers to decrease the chamber penalty.

Same end place, a big chamber that sustains the invulnerability, just coming at it from two different directions.

Matt_Bradock · Jul 16, 2018

Another way to go about it is to limit the functionality of a homebase. For example, some functions of an outpost are simply unavailable (e.g. you can't claim a system from a homebase; you can't put a warp gate or a shipyard on it) on an invulnerable homebase, reducing it to merely an emergency vault where you can store some resources and ships but can't do much more with it. That forces you to build other, destructible outposts to claim your star systems for the mining bonus, or mass produce ships, but you can still have a secure cache in case you get rekt.

Edymnion · Jul 16, 2018

Matt_Bradock said:
Another way to go about it is to limit the functionality of a homebase. For example, some functions of an outpost are simply unavailable (e.g. you can't claim a system from a homebase; you can't put a warp gate or a shipyard on it) on an invulnerable homebase, reducing it to merely an emergency vault where you can store some resources and ships but can't do much more with it. That forces you to build other, destructible outposts to claim your star systems for the mining bonus, or mass produce ships, but you can still have a secure cache in case you get rekt.

Eh, I can see an easy way to abuse this. Long as the server allows two bases in one sector, you just build two stations and wrap the special blocks of the vulnerable one in a shell of decoration from the invulnerable one.

Matt_Bradock · Jul 16, 2018

Edymnion said:
Eh, I can see an easy way to abuse this. Long as the server allows two bases in one sector, you just build two stations and wrap the special blocks of the vulnerable one in a shell of decoration from the invulnerable one.

Show me one server that allows more than one player-made station per sector.

OfficialCoding · Jul 16, 2018

Matt_Bradock said:
Show me one server that allows more than one player-made station per sector.

Aetherion might allow more than one station per sector.

Matt_Bradock · Jul 16, 2018

There is a good reason that the limit of player-made stations per sector 1 by default, it caused a lot of shenanigans and still does, as well as allowing for exploits as mentioned before.

JinM · Jul 16, 2018

My favourite "exploit" is, when you use the protection of the advanced stick shops to dock a huge bubble, and inside of this you build a protected station. Even though you can glitch into it, it has some cool character.

Bladeriker · Jul 16, 2018

So this thread is a how to balance mechanics around PvP. That is all nice and good, but for a universe update I was thinking about NPC factions, new and better planets, reasons to explore and trade, not about HB immunity or how to not be camped, that seems a moot point to those players that enjoy survival mode/single player/offline.

From the prospective of a offline survival player, HB immunity insures that early on I can gather in relative peace, I can mix my refining station with my storage, and my Ship yard and start making my fleets. At this point in time though, the Hostile factions even after the power and weapon updates can be dealt with by a fleet while taking minimal damage. Exploration comes down to using the biggest and baddest ship you have to go and explore, all the while having a mining fleet gather resources for you.

So things that would help make survival/offline game play better are.

A.I. for both NPC and fleets needs work.
Using a Planet as a home base instead of a Station.
Flora and Fauna
NPC planet side cities/bases
Different planet sizes
Planets with moons.

Tolnorus · Jul 16, 2018

Bladeriker said:
So this thread is a how to balance mechanics around PvP. That is all nice and good, but for a universe update I was thinking about NPC factions, new and better planets, reasons to explore and trade, not about HB immunity or how to not be camped, that seems a moot point to those players that enjoy survival mode/single player/offline.

I agree completely. My involvement in this thread has been as the voice of the non-PVPer who sees nothing wrong with existing HomeBase invulnerability. As I said earlier, the issue of turtling is a feature of PVP as a concept, rather than a special property of StarMade, and I do not think it can ever be resolved. Therefor I don't want to see the developers create unnecessary changes to the game in order to cater to the demands of players that desire solutions to an insoluable problem.

Bladeriker said:
So things that would help make survival/offline game play better are.

A.I. for both NPC and fleets needs work.

Using a Planet as a home base instead of a Station.

Flora and Fauna

NPC planet side cities/bases

Different planet sizes

Planets with moons.

I, too, want all of these things. I see no reason why we cannot all have what we want here. This particular thread is just people tossing around ideas regarding the implications of HomeBase invulnerability on PVP. Until we reach some kind of conclusion, I am really hoping the developers don't implement any of the ideas presented here. This entire issue is not a new one in the game world and should not be a priority. I would rather see the developers spend their time solving catastrophic game bugs and developing items on your list.

jayman38 · Jul 16, 2018

Idea:
Spacestation invulnerability toggle by player
Any spacestation set to invulnerable in a system will turn off mining and other bonus multipliers. (Maybe factory enhancers stop working in invulnerable mode?) If you want the multiplier, all stations in the system need to be vulnerable.
If you toggle the setting, it has a 1-week (as an example) cooldown before you can toggle again. (No turning off vulnerability and turning on bonuses while logged in and then "raising shields" and turning off bonus when going offline.)
You can have invulnerable stations, but your mining efforts will have only baseline efficiency, with no mining bonuses.
Or you can leave yourself vulnerable and get those tasty bonuses.

Example usage:
You normally run "vulnerable" and enjoy bonus-enhanced mining alongside friendly factions, and rarely suffer combat losses.
Suddenly, you hear of a whole section of the map that got wiped out overnight. You switch to invulnerable bases for a while, struggling through baseline mining operations, until the rogue faction gets bored and logs off to go find trouble on another server. Bingo, back to vulnerable stations and mining bonuses.

To make it easier, this toggle should be set from the map, so you don't have to actually go to each station, and can perform toggles on multiple stations very quickly. (Hopefully turning things invulnerable before a rogue faction can wipe you out.)

To make sure it isn't abused horribly, maybe make rules for invulnerability eligibility. (E.g. Minimum mass of 4000, minimum size of 1 million blocks, minimum dimensions, etc....) That way, you don't have rogue factions laying down minimal stations (below minimum stats) in otherwise unoccupied sectors, blocking other factions. They can still technically block, but it will require a certain minimum amount of resources, in order to make it fair.

Since it is per-star-system, you can still have an invulnerable homebase plus vulnerable stations on your "frontier". The player has options.

Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW · Jul 16, 2018

HB invulnerability is, for the most part, fine, and very important to prevent domination by established factions and random griefers.

The real question is how we get players to want to build multiple stations for an optional benefit. How do we make it so that you aren't always processing ores the same place you're gathering them (or just gathering with a ship and jumping to HB to process)?
I think there's actually a pretty simple answer to this: station-harvestable trickling resource nodes. Essentially, some sort of specialized resource node that you have to build a station around to continuously get resources from (as opposed to being able to mop it up in a minute with a salvager setup).
Ideally, you'd want multiple stations at multiple nodes, and you would then bring the collected resources to a single station somewhere to craft everything (likely your HB).
For added flavor, these could also come in the form of volcanos on planets.
Large power or system requirements to mine these would mean the mining stations would be somewhat sizable (say, minimum of a 10x10x10 cube to work).

Also, a limit on how many ships get the invincibility from HB docking could encourage not stationing a whole fleet at one.

Edymnion · Jul 16, 2018

JinM said:
My favourite "exploit" is, when you use the protection of the advanced stick shops to dock a huge bubble, and inside of this you build a protected station. Even though you can glitch into it, it has some cool character.

I've done something similar to this before. Spawned a single station block as close to a stick shop as I could, then built my station entirely around the shop.

Search

Universe Patch Brainstorming: Incentives Against Turtling?

JinM

NTIMESc

Matt_Bradock

The Shrink

OfficialCoding

Professional Quickfire Hater

Edymnion

Carebear Extraordinaire!

wiesshund

MacThule

Tolnorus

Edymnion

Carebear Extraordinaire!

Matt_Bradock

The Shrink

Edymnion

Carebear Extraordinaire!

Matt_Bradock

The Shrink

OfficialCoding

Professional Quickfire Hater

Matt_Bradock

The Shrink

JinM

Bladeriker

Tolnorus

jayman38

Precentor-Primus, pro-tempore

Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW

Edymnion

Carebear Extraordinaire!