A case study in factions- The solution to everything (ENDED)

[JinM]

In order for this to work, you require motivations to expand in the first place.

However, rather then costestng random stations, why not allow players to deploy their own?

Perhaps contesting of these territories could be done with timer mechanics similar to the ones I proposed awhile back.

Buying contestable stations seems like a lazy, band-aid solution to a much bigger problem.



Giving players another way to PvP won't solve this problem, we need to address why PvP is stagnant in the first place, turtling is one of the biggest issues that needs to be a addressed, the other is lack of reaons to expand and the fact that the current game mechanics punish you for expanding.

I didn't read the op in detail (too complicated) =) Question:

This thread is about pure pvp servers, or for servers where we want to mix up base building (creative part) and pvp teritorial gameplay?

I mean it's important to clarify this...If you want to have base and outpost building as part of the pvp, there are many ways to encourage people to - a lot imo. If we want pure pvp servers (definition: here we built bases too, but they are meant to get contested and thus destroyed, so the players know that using creativity on the bases might be not very fun to do), the gamemode is kinda different.

I personally like the mix of pvp and protected base building.

My underlying thought is: Booth playmodes define different goals from the start. And those goals are the driving encouragements to make more pvp/player interaction (trading/rp/aso.).

A mix server, to give one example goal of the many that such a mix server should give, can encourage pvp by giving players better places to build (you start at the rim, and if you are good in pvp, you can build near a lifely area, like near a wealthy trade station, and get a magnificient skyline, and can watch many trade ships passing around each day - you then actually feel like near some center of society and life), or by giving players more space to build (limitted station size).

A pvp server, on the other hand, could encourage pvp with ranking lists, teritorial maps, sides where faction get grouped together (good example: HWS for empyrion, this server had 4 sides (each new hws-version changed the config, now there are only 3), traders, alliance (the good guys), lawless, freelancer (bounty hunters)), maximum outpost count and main station size/main station ship docking limits depending on fought battles/won battles...

But it must be differentiated, because the encouragments are indirectly connected to the universe setup. You don't have to limit ressources (less asteroids) on servers, it could solve the problem, yes, but you can also give other encouraging goals, that don't even depend on ressources. =)

Another reason why it must be differentiated between mix and pvp is, that I, as Starmade-player, join server because I seek a certain game: Either I join a server for pvp, and don't care for building taht much, or I join a server for pvp and building, and then I need to know how station protections work. You have to choose, because pure pvp, and mix, work different in the way players can get encouraged to then interact or fight.

And it helps to brainstorm, as it can help approaching the problem for only the pvp side for example, and then only from the creative side, and then mixing the different encouragements. I mean for me it's really just brainstorming. I know that I might not come up with the solution to get people to interact more, that is also suitable for the Starmade-game as whole.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Oh no, the entities that already exist, just stored in deep space or on one man faction homebases, now moved to a shop! Truly a disaster for the stability of servers! Hardly an issue, especially with a soft limit in the form of exponential parking fees for more ships past the limit, or a even hard limit on ship count.

Invincible shops would be TG space only, although perhaps Pirates/Scavengers and other NPC factions could have something similar without the advanced protections offered by TG ones (more on that in my final paragraph). Since it's just in NPC space it's hardly an issue.

You're making this more complex than it needs to be and you are investing in hypothetical (possibly rejected) concepts. It would be more productive to focus on what is currently in game and what additions Schine has confirmed.

The main problem with solo factions is that they can take valuable territory and there is no way to dislodge them.

Solo factions have one home base each. With the exception of their home base and its associated system claim, everything in their home system can be removed by force. Any additional territory they take requires faction points just to occupy; limiting them to a maximum of 2-3 systems held indefinitely. This additional territory is 100% vulnerable and easily capture-able. If you feel the need to "dislodge" a solo player from one system in a galaxy with hundreds (if not thousands) of stars, then solo factions aren't your problem. You're just being greedy.

Solo players should have a safe harbor to dock to at night however, and shops fill that. This is why the invincible homebase complaint does not apply to invincible shops.

Your complaint was that Starmade does not have the mechanics to allow for something like EvE, where solo players do not need their own solo faction, because we don't have safe stations for them to dock to when they're offline. When I explained that we already sort of do and that it will probably be expanded in the future, you immediately changed topics to this now being a bad thing for us to have these mechanics. Why the sudden change of face?

Make TG space work like the Hi/Low Sec spaces of EvE. Try and attack a non-pirate target in TG space? TG police cruisers will be on the spot in a few seconds ready to kick the shit out of you, with inhibs to keep you from running, if you don't get out fast enough. Try and attack a non-pirate target at a SHOP? Wow, now you've really fucked up. Shop instantly locks you out of redocking, hits you with a high power inhib, and TG enforcers are on the scene in a second. Don't care about losing a newbie griefing frigate when you can afford hundreds of them? Maybe you'll care when the TG gives your faction a trade embargo and you're no longer allowed to use their gates or send ships or freighters through their space?

There is neither a "complaint" nor "change of face" in my statements. Eve-Online is a different game with a vastly different play-style than StarMade; hence why I say "apples to oranges". For the purpose of this discussion, I am talking about StarMade and what works with StarMade's play-style(s). Like I said before; If you want to play Eve Online, by all means, go right ahead. No one is stopping you.

Back on topic; The benefits of invincible (if implemented) shop docking are offset by the likelihood of abuse. Those benefits would also be removed by your suggestions of "docked-ship-dimensional limits" and limits to how many docks you can occupy at once. Meanwhile, the potential for abuse remains. Another thing to consider; NPC factions previously didn't claim any faction territory. Much of the "valuable territory" you previously mentioned may come with mining penalties if it is claimed by NPCs. Do you really want them to have invulnerable bases (and thus, immovable faction claims) in all the sectors/systems they claim?

 

[Lecic]

You're making this more complex than it needs to be and you are investing in hypothetical (possibly rejected) concepts. It would be more productive to focus on what is currently in game and what additions Schine has confirmed.

A "rejected" idea that has since been implemented into the game.

Yes, let's focus on what is currently in game and what additions Schine has confirmed, shall we? Those being invulnerable shops you can dock to (already implemented) and the TG HB/spawn station combo with public factories, shipyards, docks, etc (confirmed and the station has already been mostly finished for well over a year).

Back on topic; The benefits of invincible (if implemented) shop docking are offset by the likelihood of abuse. Those benefits would also be removed by your suggestions of "docked-ship-dimensional limits" and limits to how many docks you can occupy at once. Meanwhile, the potential for abuse remains.

Not only have I already proposed solutions that fix your "likelhood of abuse," my solutions do not "remove the benefits" of this free docking. Solo players would have plenty of space for their ships, with the docking boxes only preventing huge ships or designs designed to obstruct the station from other players. Parking costs wouldn't kick in for a player unless they had quite a few ships, let alone the hard cap. And any solo player with too many or too huge of ships could always consider going to a player faction and paying them for parking on their station instead. No potential for abuse remains, at least not any you could come up with, clearly, since all you could do was say that.

Solo factions have one home base each. With the exception of their home base and its associated system claim, everything in their home system can be removed by force. Any additional territory they take requires faction points just to occupy; limiting them to a maximum of 2-3 systems held indefinitely. This additional territory is 100% vulnerable and easily capture-able. If you feel the need to "dislodge" a solo player from one system in a galaxy with hundreds (if not thousands) of stars, then solo factions aren't your problem. You're just being greedy.

One solo faction is not a problem. However, if you log into any MP server, you will notice that there are often dozens of solo factions on the list. This is just with our current, very low population. Are you not considering what would happen once uneven resource distribution is implemented, in a more populated game, where there could be hundreds of solo factions on a server, each one being completely impossible to remove and each claiming one of the much smaller number of actually useful systems? The systems intended to make the game more interesting as large factions battle for ownership over them, now deadlocked?

Another thing to consider; NPC factions previously didn't claim any faction territory. Much of the "valuable territory" you previously mentioned may come with mining penalties if it is claimed by NPCs. Do you really want them to have invulnerable bases (and thus, immovable faction claims) in all the sectors/systems they claim?

NPC factions are poorly implemented in their current status. I think the TG, Scavs, and Outcasts should be reworked into smallish (~10 systems), fixed, more solo player focused elements of the game. Their main role is to give allied solo players and small factions quests to perform, and as trading partners and central trading nodes for the larger competing player empires.

Growing NPC factions that fight over territory with eachother are pointless in MP. That is what player factions are for. The SP is what the current style of NPC faction should be used for, plus adding in things like the fleet contest factions to further pad out the world.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

A "rejected" idea that has since been implemented into the game.

Yes, let's focus on what is currently in game and what additions Schine has confirmed, shall we? Those being invulnerable shops you can dock to (already implemented) and the TG HB/spawn station combo with public factories, shipyards, docks, etc (confirmed and the station has already been mostly finished for well over a year).

I take it you're referring to this announcement?

It's handy for new/un-established players, but home bases are still the better option for most other players for a variety of reasons; the most prominent of which is; they get to build and control the base.

Not only have I already proposed solutions that fix your "likelhood of abuse," my solutions do not "remove the benefits" of this free docking. Solo players would have plenty of space for their ships, with the docking boxes only preventing huge ships or designs designed to obstruct the station from other players. Parking costs wouldn't kick in for a player unless they had quite a few ships, let alone the hard cap. And any solo player with too many or too huge of ships could always consider going to a player faction and paying them for parking on their station instead. No potential for abuse remains, at least not any you could come up with, clearly, since all you could do was say that.

No. Your proposal only fixes what favors your agenda. It also underestimates some of the more creative builders out there and places unnecessary restrictions on a LOT of players.

One solo faction is not a problem. However, if you log into any MP server, you will notice that there are often dozens of solo factions on the list. This is just with our current, very low population. Are you not considering what would happen once uneven resource distribution is implemented, in a more populated game, where there could be hundreds of solo factions on a server, each one being completely impossible to remove and each claiming one of the much smaller number of actually useful systems? The systems intended to make the game more interesting as large factions battle for ownership over them, now deadlocked?

A solo faction can use home base protection on at most, one planet or station. That's one physical object that you can't mine/salvage. ...in a galaxy; comprised of hundreds to thousands of stars; each with the potential to yield planets, asteroids and whatever other resources Schine introduces. No matter how plentiful or sparse the resources are, literally every other player structure besides a home base can be captured, mined or destroyed regardless of ownership. If that's not enough for you, you're being greedy.

Also, if there are "dozens" of solo faction on most servers and possibly "hundreds" of them on a single server, did you ever stop to ask "why"?

NPC factions are poorly implemented in their current status. I think the TG, Scavs, and Outcasts should be reworked into smallish (~10 systems), fixed, more solo player focused elements of the game. Their main role is to give allied solo players and small factions quests to perform, and as trading partners and central trading nodes for the larger competing player empires.

Growing NPC factions that fight over territory with eachother are pointless in MP. That is what player factions are for. The SP is what the current style of NPC faction should be used for, plus adding in things like the fleet contest factions to further pad out the world.

Ok. NPCs, shops, restrictions and abuse aside; I didn't come here to endlessly discuss your substitutions for actual solo factions.

The fact is, these solo factions keep popping up everywhere because this particular play-style is just as popular (if not more so) than large scale faction play. If you don't want to play with soloists, there are plenty of PvP servers who routinely purge solo-factions. Failing that, I'll say it again ask for a config.

If you want to discuss what should be in this config and how to make it work, we can continue this exchange. If you want to make an effort to understand why solo play is so popular and brainstorm ways to encourage habitual solo players to group up, we can do that somewhere else.

 

[Lecic]

No. Your proposal only fixes what favors your agenda. It also underestimates some of the more creative builders out there and places unnecessary restrictions on a LOT of players.

Would you like to give an example of how a "creative builder" would bypass the restrictions I placed on ship size on public docks, and how they would restrict any player who isn't intentionally trying to cause grief?

A solo faction can use home base protection on at most, one planet or station. That's one physical object that you can't mine/salvage. ...in a galaxy; comprised of hundreds to thousands of stars; each with the potential to yield planets, asteroids and whatever other resources Schine introduces. No matter how plentiful or sparse the resources are, literally every other player structure besides a home base can be captured, mined or destroyed regardless of ownership. If that's not enough for you, you're being greedy.

Also, if there are "dozens" of solo faction on most servers and possibly "hundreds" of them on a single server, did you ever stop to ask "why"?

That solo faction has territory control of the system. Everyone else will have lower mining benefits, lower scanner ranges, no "enemy in system" warning, etc. As we have already covered and you have ignored, territory and control over specific systems will be more important in the future, and if immovable solo factions have set up permanent control of that system, then no one else can get those claim benefits. There will not be "hundreds or thousands" of valuable systems because then there would be nothing to fight over.

There are lots of solo factions because there are trust issues associated with factions, and because there is a complete lack of safe harbor for them. There is no reason to NOT make a faction, so of course they will.

 

[GnomeKing]

There is no reason to NOT make a faction, so of course they will.

there are of course various benefits to making a solo 'faction' as well (fleet,diplomacy,trade-control,mining bonus).

not having your ship stolen would be the key reason for most new players on a server i guess> and yes I am looking at you B

Perhaps we could try an alternative term or idea to 'faction'? - idk, something that conveys some sense of corporate identity ( A self-employed rock miner maybe...an android overlord perhaps ....maybe not this far: Corporate personhood - Wikipedia ....

 

[Lecic]

there are of course various benefits to making a solo 'faction' as well (fleet,diplomacy,trade-control,mining bonus).

not having your ship stolen would be the key reason for most new players on a server i guess> and yes I am looking at you B

Perhaps we could try an alternative term or idea to 'faction'? - idk, something that conveys some sense of corporate identity ( A self-employed rock miner maybe...an android overlord perhaps ....maybe not this far: Corporate personhood - Wikipedia ....

"Corporations" could be a way to do it. Maybe corporations can have "corporate headquarters claims" on individual planets or stations within a faction (something more like a "nation") territory and pay taxes on raw resources collected and credits earned during trades within the system. This would add a new dynamic to the game as large factions would set aside systems and assemble fast warpgate trade routes to try and attract lots of corporations to their territory, while keeping their taxes low enough or corporate benefits high enough that they stay. It would also add more to fight over, as corporations will usually not be targets and whoever takes over a territory will now have those companies within their space instead.
And if you don't like a corporation you can always crank their tax rates to 100% and they'll leave your territory quickly, unlike with solo factions, where you have no way to get them to leave.
Dual faction and corporate membership could also exist, allowing an individual player in a faction to, say, sell custom ships to people, with the main faction getting a slice of taxes from this, while that player is still a part of your faction for battles and such.

 

[aceface]

no; you are right i suppose - not too exploity, just ugly and used in situations lacking fun (except for that pilot) - on you go then, what could possibly be problematic about that ... :/

lol

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Would you like to give an example of how a "creative builder" would bypass the restrictions I placed on ship size on public docks, and how they would restrict any player who isn't intentionally trying to cause grief?

For the bypass; Chain docking, logic and rails is one way I would do it. Although there are builders who would make me look like I wasn't even trying.

For the restrictions; this proposal forces players to keep their ships small and avoid creating fleets. I don't mind building small but I know many who hate it. As for fleets; they're pretty much a requirement vs other players with fleets.

That solo faction has territory control of the system. Everyone else will have lower mining benefits, lower scanner ranges, no "enemy in system" warning, etc. As we have already covered and you have ignored, territory and control over specific systems will be more important in the future, and if immovable solo factions have set up permanent control of that system, then no one else can get those claim benefits. There will not be "hundreds or thousands" of valuable systems because then there would be nothing to fight over.

I could understand if the solo faction just set up shop and then went inactive two days later; in which case most servers tend to de-faction or purge those. But what about the guy who's productive and is gearing up to expand? What makes a larger faction's claim to these systems anymore important than his?

There are lots of solo factions because there are trust issues associated with factions, and because there is a complete lack of safe harbor for them. There is no reason to NOT make a faction, so of course they will.

So we've established that even with permission tools in place, there are still trust issues. This is accurate; since having and properly using these tools does not prevent your faction mates from screwing up; letting un-vetted players in, starting wars or flying your mining/patrol ships into enemy territory or the sun. Given the unpredictable nature of online game play, it's important to allow (except where banned by server rules and config settings) players to remain solo until they find someone they can really trust. Permission tools or not; having trust-worthy members is the key to creating a good faction. Even still, trust aside; some players want to play solo. Provided they aren't on a server that prohibits going solo, there should be no punishment for doing so.

Regarding safe harbor; can you explain this? I'm not sure I catch your meaning.

 

[Lecic]

Regarding safe harbor; can you explain this? I'm not sure I catch your meaning.

An invulnerable dock where players can dock without fear of being destroyed while they are offline.

I can concede that safe harbors in TG space are a bad idea as the SOLE way for solo players to guard their stuff, and should mostly be for new players, but what did you think about the corporations idea I said earlier?

 

[Snowtiger256]

Regarding safe harbor; can you explain this? I'm not sure I catch your meaning.

If you don't have a faction on an MP server, then you cannot even use faction blocks to secure your stuff. Having a faction is currently a prerequisite for being able to access faction blocks at all. Even if all you do is use them to mark your stuff as personal, you still need to have a faction, in order to do this.

Non-factioned ships and structures are usable by virtually anyone in a MP server, there are no safety measures applied to them. Even if you do park them into the "safe haven" near shops, anyone can just come around and take them when you're offline, or shoot them to bits, at their leisure without having to worry about war declarations.

In order to reduce the amount of Solo factions in-game(especially on servers that don't allow Solo factions), we need a way to secure personal stuff without needing to create a faction to do it. For this, an invulnerable (possibly with the ability to toggle this feature) personal home station would be a good thing, even if it has the downside of not being able to claim territory, like a proper faction HB.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

An invulnerable dock where players can dock without fear of being destroyed while they are offline.

If you don't have a faction on an MP server, then you cannot even use faction blocks to secure your stuff. Having a faction is currently a prerequisite for being able to access faction blocks at all. Even if all you do is use them to mark your stuff as personal, you still need to have a faction, in order to do this.

Non-factioned ships and structures are usable by virtually anyone in a MP server, there are no safety measures applied to them. Even if you do park them into the "safe haven" near shops, anyone can just come around and take them when you're offline, or shoot them to bits, at their leisure without having to worry about war declarations.

I figured this is what was meant but didn't want to assume.

In order to reduce the amount of Solo factions in-game(especially on servers that don't allow Solo factions), we need a way to secure personal stuff without needing to create a faction to do it. For this, an invulnerable (possibly with the ability to toggle this feature) personal home station would be a good thing, even if it has the downside of not being able to claim territory, like a proper faction HB.

To be honest, I could care less about territory since my faction is mobile in nature and I'm more inclined to build on either planet or in a void sector. While I don't oppose the separation of territory and an invulnerable personal station, I do think that if your home base is in a sector, that you should still get your mining bonus from the sector (and possibly the adjacent sectors) your HB is in, unless you manage to take over the whole system. This would ensure that soloists get something worthwhile for their efforts; even if it's just one planet.

but what did you think about the corporations idea I said earlier?

It has its merits, although, I'm not a fan of the tax idea; as it kills much of the point of being an independent faction (answering only to yourself). For constructivity's sake, I think it would be better to approach this from a different angle than exploiting less established players and factions and "running off factions we don't like". That doesn't sound like the best way to attract new players.

If you really want to play like this, a server config setting could allow for this play-style without changing everything everywhere else. That way, everyone can get what they want, even if it's on different servers.

Regarding system control itself; I think the whole concept needs a rework. Placing one undetectable block to take over an entire system is unrealistic. I don't care if you're a solo faction or have 20 members; there should be some actual work that needs to be done to take and maintain control of a whole system.

Spoiler: My idea for anyone interested

Require the faction to construct multiple bases in a system which spread your faction's influence radially throughout the system. The stronger the base, the larger the radius of influence (prevents one-block station spam). When your bases influence "enough" (server config anyone?) of the system's sectors, then you can claim it. Claimed systems would get the mining bonus but if a base is destroyed; resulting in insufficient influence, the system reverts back to "neutral" or "contested" and yields only the standard mining amount until your influence encompasses enough of the system's sectors for you to claim it again.

Then again, all of this is completely meaningless if server admins keep boosting the mining bonuses into the stratosphere the way they do now; in which case, the concept of sparse resources won't mean much.

 

[Arcaner]

Okay folks. The discussion has moved onto the other thread

Hopefully Dr.Whammy and the other RP/PvE players my won't have a problem with the restructured proposals.