Free Stations

[MacThule]

Stations cost a stack of cash to drop one block, but switching on unlimited, infinite invulnerability for one is free.

Maybe switch from charging players to drop a single stationary block in space to charging for activating HB immunity. It would incentivize non-HB stations (by making them cheaper) and it would be at least one tiny step towards balancing HB protection.

Stations should be free or very cheap to deploy; instead HB status should be expensive and a credit sink. Expensive to turn on, and have an hourly maintenance fee.

Random, easily killed stations shouldn't be where we sink credits - they're already terribly discouraged in other ways.

 

[NeonSturm]

A system has for every 4x4x4 sectors a total of 64 sectors.
Every 16x16x16 is a total of 4096 sectors already.
32^3 totals in 16384 sectors.

The credit cost is against spam. Simple.


A better idea would be to enable some free sectors in the corners of a system of sectors above planet sectors.
Or have a supply-station which can supply a limited number of outposts as long as an array of supply-blocks is intact.

 

[Mordrin]

Hmmm ... This is what I used to do, and also the tip I gave to other players. Get a buildblock, place it on a free derelict station. Remove every other block while in buildmode, wich gives you alot of scrap metal and crystal. When only buildblock remains, buy the station and pay the ammount of credit of a single buildblock. Use the scrap to start making blocks to build your station.

Disclaimer, I haven't actually played for quite a while and are not sure if this is still doable.

 

[Sachys]

I think this could only work if station habitation / activity negates it.

Hmmm ... This is what I used to do, and also the tip I gave to other players. Get a buildblock, place it on a free derelict station. Remove every other block while in buildmode, wich gives you alot of scrap metal and crystal. When only buildblock remains, buy the station and pay the ammount of credit of a single buildblock. Use the scrap to start making blocks to build your station.

Disclaimer, I haven't actually played for quite a while and are not sure if this is still doable.

i think it is, but from what i remember it causes major issues (like building on roids) especially where stations that used now outdated / unavailable blocks are concerned.

 

[NeonSturm]

I think 25k credits are not much. Not even a million if you build well-defended bases.

The problem is, that while you build 8 bases with a million blocks, the other guy builds ONE titan with 8 million blocks which is much stronger than your stations.
The second problem - I would allow some free satellite/newbie bases somewhere (free sectors or around a supply-station that must survive to not make these despawn)


Perhaps, there could be a supply station supplying all other stations in the whole system with some PLACEHOLDER_BUFFNAME.
It could be fuel, shield energy through the gate-network, GATE_WEAPONS firing a stream of torpedo-drones through a gate, etc.

Ideally, it should be too much of a risk and too few reward for a titan registering it's own position at a GATE_STATION.
Peoples can ambush the titan with a fleet outnumbering it through that gate network before he destroys it.
And if it is too big, the station kills are even less of a reward for that player.

 

[NTIMESc]

I don't see any reason to try and balance homebase protection. Servers can manage that stuff on their own. I do like the idea of lowering the default station cost. Maybe the 50k is for a building permit. We should at least get a complimentary build block!

 

[Tsnonak]

Stations cost a stack of cash to drop one block, but switching on unlimited, infinite invulnerability for one is free.

Maybe switch from charging players to drop a single stationary block in space to charging for activating HB immunity. It would incentivize non-HB stations (by making them cheaper) and it would be at least one tiny step towards balancing HB protection.

Stations should be free or very cheap to deploy; instead HB status should be expensive and a credit sink. Expensive to turn on, and have an hourly maintenance fee.

Random, easily killed stations shouldn't be where we sink credits - they're already terribly discouraged in other ways.

I like this idea also... although I would say the "vanilla" 50k for a station-block is "chump-change" on the grand scale, and is not a major contributing factor in opting to have only one base, i.e. the "Homebase", it is more about all the invested work and resources pumped into a fully functional station that is totally vulnerable... To this I can only say: it is part of the game, and it can even be an enjoyable and rewarding aspect to build something for the purpose of "content" that poses a challenge to others to try and destroy, not just anybody will swing by and destroy a well defended Outpost!

Therefore I would say that "dropping" a station for a "small" fee is "ok", but maybe an even better requirement would be to have a build block in the inventory (like popping a blueprint) and raising the faction point maintenance-fee for the Homebase Invulnerabilty (and of course only one per faction*).

In my opinion "unlimited, infinite invulnerability" should not be free, or better said... should cost more than it currently in vanilla does...

Currently as long as someone logs onto MP-server for 2.5 minutes every few days "iirc" there is no threat of loosing any faction points, or your HB-protection (only by longer absense will FPs drop below 0 and you will loose the Invulnerability).
Maybe it should also be noted that this "default" setting has no use in SP, it is purely a MP-server issue...

and...

Anything that has no Invulnerability will be a credit and time "sink", no way around this and should simply be considered part of the game...
What you build is "content" for others... Rebuilding is part of it... and don't forget the most important part, it has to be found first, space is a vast empty place! Using them to claim systems will lead others right to it!

Hmmm ... This is what I used to do, and also the tip I gave to other players. Get a buildblock, place it on a free derelict station. Remove every other block while in buildmode, wich gives you alot of scrap metal and crystal. When only buildblock remains, buy the station and pay the ammount of credit of a single buildblock. Use the scrap to start making blocks to build your station.

Disclaimer, I haven't actually played for quite a while and are not sure if this is still doable.

To this I can only say, my recent experiences as an Admin and as a Player... do not build on existing "decayed" stations, pirate bases or planets (not sure about asteroids*)... It is a known Bug that these structures "reset" to their original state, and even sometimes completely disappear!
Buy it for the blocks and dismantle it, build elsewhere, use it and forget it, or simply ignore them is best advice.

 

[NeonSturm]

How about making every station credit-free/invincible, but give players station-vouchers that are required?

One voucher increases station level by 1 (from 0, nothing).
Server rules can allow 50k mass in non-void and 300k mass in void sectors and every 50k mass above requires one voucher more.

Every player can get 10 vouchers per week - one per day and 3 for first login extra.
If you want to attack a station, you have to sacrifice one or more vouchers to make it drop invincibility.

EDIT: You may purchase more for these 25/50k credits stations cost now.

 

[MacThule]

Anything that has no Invulnerability will be a credit and time "sink", no way around this and should simply be considered part of the game...
What you build is "content" for others... Rebuilding is part of it... and don't forget the most important part, it has to be found first, space is a vast empty place! Using them to claim systems will lead others right to it!

This sort of gets to the heart of it. Normal stations are already a gamble/sink. Why should they be taxed at all, even if it's a drop in the bucket?

Players should be encouraged to drop additional, non-immune stations. Not taxed for it, even if it's an amount you make in 3 seconds of mining.

Because the initial cost affects the way stations are perceived. You've already invested money, so you should protect that, right? Shields, weapons, etc - now that investment is like 250M... and probably doomed... you know what? Why bother? On the other hand, the cheaper the basic station is, the less reason we have to invest millions into defending it. A station on the scope of a stick shop would only run a couple million, so there's no point spending 50M to defend that 2M investment. 50K isn't much either way in that context, but I do believe that it's a psychological factor discouraging non-immune stations. Particularly for new players.

I agree 100% that player stations are content. I want more. Player stations shouldn't be taxed. If anything, they should be generating revenue to encourage more spontaneous content.

 

[Tsnonak]

I expect this is the "biggest" source of the problem...

I do believe that it's a psychological factor discouraging non-immune stations. Particularly for new players.

I find this a very interesting concept and am working to figure out how to make it happen now with the new Rule-system! ^^
...

If anything, they should be generating revenue to encourage more spontaneous content.

 

[MacThule]

I expect this is the "biggest" source of the problem...



I find this a very interesting concept and am working to figure out how to make it happen now with the new Rule-system! ^^
...

Dude, if you could jury-rig credit revenues for non-immune stations you'd be a genius. Particularly if you could somehow prevent any faction from having more than one revenue per system or something like that. Definitely post if you get any positive results from that experiment!

 

[Zekester81]

Player stations shouldn't be taxed. If anything, they should be generating revenue to encourage more spontaneous content.

Non HBed stations generating money might be very good incentive. Perhaps a way could be found to combine a couple ideas here.

Make certain systems make a station ineligible to be set as HB, like advanced factories and shipyards. Using the cargo system and shipyards in combination with permission modules, a station with factories' storages could have stock limits placed on them by the user that would auto-sell material on the game's market. Using the permission modules and shipyard computers, permission could be given for NPC factions that are neutral or friendly to "rent" shipyard space. While not in use by you, you could be selling ships and excess materials for profit. Payments could be given when trade guild ships pass through the system, or upon a ships completion.

This gives you incentive to make those and they would be well worth defending.

Edit: And what I forgot to say earlier, making this a little more relevant to the op's question. I would leave a price for stations, of some kind. Possibly even increasing it if some revenue generation could be made, or if stations were incentivized enough in some way. With the way it stands now, it's kinda cheap for being able to build invulnerable stations, imo. You are paying for the invulnerability basically when you get it anyways, you just reserve the option to leave it off if you look at it a certain point of view. If stations were not incentivized switching the major cost over to the act of HBing the station would be ok, but I would leave a smaller fee for the station it's self.

 

[MacThule]

Ideally they'd give credit revenue AND generate FP, but whatever. Of course even better would be if you could only use drone fleets to unloaded mine within x sectors of a station with certain systems installed and functional (e.g. a L5 or better reactor with a logistics chamber for guiding drone miners). Stuff like that would be great, but I think if we hold out for that it'll be 9 years down the line.

 

[NeonSturm]

1. Use cases.
2. Player value.

1. Above planets. At a border that grows not linear but cubic with hollow core. Radar installations at important spots. Gates. Shops.
2. Will a casual player some time become like a house-fly we slap with a fly-catcher among the wealth of a growing empire faction?

3. The idealistic way.

3. Player gets his 10 station coupons a weak and either he grows or decides to slow someone else's grow. But there are more "else's" out there with more coupons than he ever gets. Better be 80% selfish and expand and use 20% for community goals (like keeping galaxy in balance)

Actually it doesn't matter if it's 10 or 100. What matters is everyone is equal (after some initial play-time of a week) and there can be a soft-cap which allow new players to catch up and 1000+ stations to be penalized through PvP-piracy.

Other servers can have their growing 1-man immortal EMPEROR_OF_HUMANKIND as in WH40K with everyone else be a wardog for him.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

With the whole sector thing changing, I wouldn't count on using existing mechanics to work out HB and sector/system management.

I like the idea of additionally owned stations being a source of income for the time they exist. Ideally, automated factory and harvesting stations would be a useful one. What came to mind for me are strategy games like Command and Conquer, red Alert, etc and their use of factories with harvesters that automatically seek out mining resources or you order them to a specific location to mine. I would like this, and it would give one definite purpose for remote non-HB stations.

 

[Lord Daro]

There have been already a few neat suggestions to make stations of various sizes more attractive. I would like add another perspective that could be taking into consideration aswell, when deciding between a ship or a station for a certain job.

If we look at this realistically, a ship can technically do anything a station can while also having the ability to move around if necessary. The only reason why scifi stations and even the I.S.S, as irl example, are not basically large ships, is because it would be economical inefficent to put in enough recources to allow such large structures to move at reasonable velocities, while also not compromising strucutal integrity.

Maybe this could be translated into starmade by either having realy big diminishing returns on large amounts thrusters or perhabs by putting a new thruster block into the game that is very cheap but also much less power (or weight) efficent, while having the current one get it's production costs substantial increased .
At least those are the two possibilites I can think of on top of my head.

EDIT: Changed the part about the a second thruster block a bit, so it would't meddle with current ship designs so much.

 

[NeonSturm]

Maybe this could be translated into starmade by either having realy big diminishing returns on large amounts thrusters or perhabs by putting a new thruster block into the game, while having the current one be a much cheaper but also much less power (or weight) efficent alternative.
At least those are the two possibilites I can think of on top of my head.

I'd like 3 thruster types. Maybe more if needed.

1. Maneuver thrusters (docking, etc) - high responsible, low thrust, low consumption.
2. (aka Microwarp Pluse thrusters - high responsible, but they recall their applied inertia when shut down and have high energy loss before they even start to convert energy to thrust. Effectively, they can displace your ship by it's own size *5 meters over 1 second every 5 seconds.
3. Cruise thrusters - low responsiveness, high thrust, moderate consumption. The 5 second delay on activation while draining full energy during that time lets you want them being active at least 10 to 30 seconds to gain good benefit from the high thrust of these.
4. 
   (maybe) Warp engine (prototype). Multiplies the final speed value. Also multiplies result of stop-forces and gravity wells. No direction change possible with Warp-engine alone. Jump inhibitors also drain energy of this engine.
   Will spend energy dependent on mass of objects and warp factor up to a limit.
5. 
   (maybe) Gate engine (prototype). Set custom target gate.
   
6. 
   (maybe) Afterburners. Similar to cruise engines, but very low mass and high energy consumption and can only enhance existing thrust (one multiplication prior to Warp-engine).

It would just cover up use cases.
Low responsiveness or cooldown is only there to ensure it isn't used to create erratic flight patterns in battles.

 

[PromisedPossum]

There are some fantastic ideas in this thread. I would also consider scaling the initial station cost based on the current population of the system or cluster of systems. A real estate economy, incentive to either spread out or stay close?

I recently left a good fac due to insecurity that my creation would easily be wiped by the first big mass ship to find it. Yah, I know I need better pvp skills but I'm not really feeling a strong need to build titans or be on call 24/7.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

If we look at this realistically, a ship can technically do anything a station can while also having the ability to move around if necessary. The only reason why scifi stations and even the I.S.S, as irl example, are not basically large ships, is because it would be economical inefficent to put in enough recources to allow such large structures to move at reasonable velocities, while also not compromising strucutal integrity.

I think this could be key to working through the mobility requests many players have for stations.

Perhaps engineer the thrust mechanic to have an effect on structural integrity, based on the over all mass and docked entities.
The acceleration would be the damaging factor, so a calculation could be placed on acceleration to determine structural stress and ultimately damage to the structure and perhaps undocking of docked child entities. Logically, this would affect a real world scenario, where if you accelerated the ISS station beyond its structural capability, it would rip appart at the weakest points. Bad weak joins, docked entities etc.

As for HB protection, I think this should be negated when mobility of the station or ship for that matter is concerned.
Yeah, I think ideally applying to all objects would be nice.
Naturally, this would require a mechanic to counteract the issue of inertia/acceleration damage. Inertial dampers maybe?

 

[MacThule]

What came to mind for me are strategy games like Command and Conquer, red Alert, etc and their use of factories with harvesters that automatically seek out mining resources or you order them to a specific location to mine. I would like this, and it would give one definite purpose for remote non-HB stations.

This also occurs to my mind, because there seems a definite dev emphasis on empire dynamics. If factions could drop a drone-hub station in a 'roid field and let its drone passively mine out the surrounding sectors (up to x distance, increased with a chamber effect possibly), a whole range of options opens up and we would see POSs popping up everywhere.

The decisions would be about am I investing 500M credits to drop a well-defended, fully-chambered mining base that can strip an entire claimed system in a few days or a week for a legit hoard of resources, or am I plopping down several 10M credit, barely pirate-proofed "outposts" throughout the rings that will supply 2-3 thousand units of ore each hour.

Maybe this could be translated into starmade by either having realy big diminishing returns on large amounts thrusters or perhabs by putting a new thruster block into the game that is very cheap but also much less power (or weight) efficent, while having the current one get it's production costs substantial increased .

I would be fine with that, though I believe finding the balance would take years. With factories allowed on ships now, there really is no other difference except mobility, and stations get no compensation for immobility.

I recently left a good fac due to insecurity that my creation would easily be wiped by the first big mass ship to find it. Yah, I know I need better pvp skills but I'm not really feeling a strong need to build titans or be on call 24/7.

I really want schema to see this one, because this is the precise reason factions don't work. This is all of our story and one we've all heard on servers many times.

Our options are have 1 HB and anything else is vulnerable, or each of us have our own HB (and therefore faction). It's one more way HB invulnerability hurts the game, and a major reason stations need to be more profitable in terms of income (creds, FP, resources, whatever). If building a vulnerable station earned something worthwhile then it would be worth it because destruction would be cost of doing business and replacement wouldn't be so frustrating. When it's all a loss, the only sensible option is to each be a one-man faction. Likewise if no POS were invulnerable then why not be in a faction for mutual defense.

And automated patrols... so we don't have to be on 24/7. Our defensive fleets need to auto respond to attacks on our stations, like they do for NPCs.