Incentives to Expansion (Anti-Turtling)

[StormWing0]

Homebases should be hidden in the faction menu to enemies and neutrals due to FOW until they are revealed. Might help solve part of the problem.

 

[Lukwan]

Honestly, this anti-HB rhetoric is getting old. The current HB system is fine the way it is, if you really want to have your stuff destroyed every night you can go play Ark. Changing the way HB's work will not stop the "turtling" that is going on in servers. The devs need to come out with a solution that gives the players reason to build additional bases and claim more territory, because currently there is no reason to. A quick list of reasons that make people turtle;

I believe the Devs are doing exactly that...at this very moment. Leading with a straw-man argument is not the best way to make your case. I don't play Arrk...Sm is not Ark...SM can still be made to avoid the pitfalls other games have fallen into. BTW we are familiar with causes of this problem, as you are, so why do you say this is a non-issue? There are several threads and hundreds of posts that detail peoples concerns. Seems pretty valid to me.

In the end, it would not change the current status quo. Changing HB's will not stop this made up issue that some people think is rampant. If you really want to see people expand in the universes then you need to hound the devs into giving us meaningful updates that provide incentives.

"Hound the Devs". Nice solution...sounds easy...lets ramp up the complaints until 'they' fix it. Or...the community can brainstorm possible solutions and share their experiences. Like my experience playing on a MP server for six months while the entire Admin team worked constantly to encourage players to leave their turtle shell and interact more. No one was being pestered or harassed, just enticed with activities and events, missions and contests. This was not a 'made up' issue for the server it was attempt to avoid people having a single-player experience while on a MP server.

 

[MacThule]

Honestly, this anti-HB rhetoric is getting old. The current HB system is fine the way it is, if you really want to have your stuff destroyed every night you can go play Ark. Changing the way HB's work will not stop the "turtling" that is going on in servers. The devs need to come out with a solution that gives the players reason to build additional bases and claim more territory, because currently there is no reason to. A quick list of reasons that make people turtle;
-Additional systems cost factions FP.
-Why claim more space when every system contains just about every resource in the game.
-There are not enough players to invite into different factions to be able to even claim territory.
-Most factions are 1 player factions as it is just easier to have your own faction.
-The game offers 0 incentive to join a faction, other than dealing with drama and bs.
-Even if you got rid of HB protection, any player with half a brain would just build his base in the void away from any claimed space.

In the end, it would not change the current status quo. Changing HB's will not stop this made up issue that some people think is rampant. If you really want to see people expand in the universes then you need to hound the devs into giving us meaningful updates that provide incentives.

Did someone suggest getting rid of HB invulnerability? I missed that one completely!

Then dock a non factionned ship to the public usd on the HB to break this limit and destroy it ? Then i'm forced to not place any public usd on my station because someone could use it at his own advantage ?

Unless invulnerability only extends to faction entities. Now you suggest another 'killer' problem with the idea, and I respond with another simple solution... Except not - one's enough for me. But go on if you like.

I think it comes down to preference, not viability, in truth. Because finding detail elements in a fast-moving dialogue that simply have not been explicitly addressed yet does not prove that the entire dialogue is fruitless. Problems have solutions.

 

[Scypio]

why do you say this is a non-issue? There are several threads and hundreds of posts that detail peoples concerns. Seems pretty valid to me.

The fact that there is plenty of ppl pointing HB as a problem doesn't mean that restricting them is the real solution. They're a sanctuary for players and we shouldn't be forced to get out of our sanctuary until we, players, feel confident enough to face the world out of it. Taking limitations such as the mass or being enough active on the server and things like that are just going to provoke more problem than currently. Where is your carrot and your stick in that ? Where is the sandbox in that ?

Also we can analyse the problem from different angles, why do we stay at our only one base ? Because we have everything inside and nearby. Different roles between stations ? Well that sound cool but how can the small faction survive the big one without seeing all of his small mining outpost being crushed everytime to steal that sweet stuff ? How can the new guy coming on the server do stuff without being crushed by bigger than him and be in a situation where he can't carry on. With everything he needs on an impossible to destroy station. Current HB.
Then, what carrot and stick to use to get players out of their Homebases ? I see a few, mining, factions, crews, NPC.
- Mining : We could get some systems with certain ore that others don't have and things like that. However i don't like this idea, if we can't get out of our HB system, then i'm stuck being unable to build something in my ships. There is plenty of ways to get through but the idea stay the same and i don't like being stuck on a sandbox game because i can't gather something that is really basic.
- Factions : My prefered because the ones that don't want to get a huge faction and things like that don't get forced to fight for. Just remove the ability to claim sectors on players stations and use pre-built and invulnerable stations to do so. With some compensation for owning the sector, like daily credits.
- Crews : Like that one too. Control populated planets, control stations where we can hire them. Theses points should give crews on an exponential formula, every another crew getting more expensive to hire for each of theses points separately. Get something to expanse your empire trough the stars or do not but you'll need much more credits to do so.
- NPC : It's basically quests.

So yep, i see my carrot and my stick. HB are still the same but should they be a problem ? I don't think so because players got somewhere else to go and fight for.

 

[KillaKrazy]

Did someone suggest getting rid of HB invulnerability? I missed that one completely!

I've thought for a while that the biggest way to encourage/force expansion (without a carrot or stick) is look at making certain systems mutually incompatible with each other (completely the opposite direction of those who want 1 giant all-in-one mega-ships with factories, shipyards, etc that they never need to leave).

You can't turtle if you can't have everything in one spot.

So maybe the energy & waste put off by factories makes it impossible for undeathinators to operate on the same entity. Perhaps jumpgates cause space-time disruptions that make the entity they're on uninhabitable to life (no NPCs on jumpgate entities) or just prevented shipyards from working on the same entity.

Then factions must make a hard choice about whether their HB is focused on personnel (undeathinator, medical, docking, etc), industry, or tying together an interstellar empire with a cluster of large jumpgates. Auxiliary stations would NEED to be established then to perform the other necessary functions. Then they'd need to be defended, by both station defenses and patrolling fleets. Smart players would insist upon redundancy in non-HB stations because we know they could be destroyed, so the idea of putting all your eggs into one mega-factory station would be ensuring your manufacturing capabilities would suffer interruptions, while setting up 3-4 more modest but still effective manufacturing stations in far-flung positions in and around your territory would give you a better chance of not losing them all at once in a war.

Simply inhibiting a HB from doing it all while still allowing it to be an invulnerable stronghold where factions can park, heal, re-spawn, and control their fleets would create reasons for expansion without penalizing anyone.

Even simpler - A mass or systems limit could even be set for HBs - the powerful invulnerability field that makes them invincible might only be able to protect a rather small structure. Then HBs could still "do it all" but only on much smaller scales, so if you wanted more than a tiny, lifeline manufacturing capability you would have to go set up additional facilities.

This is my favorite as well. Simple and elegant, no carrots, no sticks, just a partial nerf to invulnerability. Especially with a server-adjustable limit. A low limit would mean a universe where homebases are basically small defensive bases with re-spawns, a tiny emergency factory line, and 2-3 docks for the team's best capital ships. A high limit could be almost unlimited and would result in universes much like they are now.

I think that infrastructure (installations with strategic value) that can be targeted to hurt an enemy is important to adding sport to Starmade, and can be done without requiring full kills. This harkens back a bit to the brainstorming in this old thread.

If HB protection is limited by mass, that mass limit can be extended to docked entities on a first come first serve basis. Pilots can easily receive a message if an entity they just docked is not granted invulnerability.

Any obstacle can be overcome, it's only a matter of the work required to do so compared to the value of doing so.



This is a very valid concern, but a key part of this game's appeal is actually its complexity. That said, I prefer the simplest solution or set of solutions for exactly the reason you bring up. All we do in here is brainstorm, then the devs come through and cherry-pick stuff and analyse whether it fits their vision of the game and wrangle with the brass tacks of implementation. I've seen many ideas that were extensively and repeatedly discussed in forum appear in the game, though rarely in exactly the way expected. So I just keep brainstorming. I don't assume every idea will or should be used, even of the very good ideas.

As far as HB size goes; I really don't believe that setting a size limit on Total Invulnerability is unreasonable, especially when an invulnerable HB can easily control an area 27 sectors in volume with deadly force. It would also go a ways to curing the turtle epidemic because as long as you can have it ALL in total invulnerability, it will always take a lot of contrived, game-bending carrots and sticks to make it worthwhile to do otherwise. Limiting invulnerability in some way (not necessarily mass) seems an elegant solution. As mentioned, it can be server adjustable. It could be set to near unlimited and players will continue to play as they do - turtling in their deluxe super-bases. If it is small, it will still allow players to have a cozy little base that keeps them from becoming space hobos just because they lose a few battles. If they don't want the stress of expanding, it will actually create incentive to trade and cooperate with allies more to overcome the limits. Specializing as part of a team will become worth considering, instead of simply doing it all yourself and being an island (with a chatroom).

Of course this is really only relevant to multiplayer, so any player in SP mode could easily have a checkbox for unlimited HB just like they already do for creative mode. That could even be the default in SP. It can be implemented to have zero impact on players who "just want to build," because even if they do decide to go MP they can play on servers with extremely generous limits and they will almost never notice the change unless their main goal is to crash the server with the size of their creations (and they're the ones ruining it for the rest of us anyway ;-)).
[doublepost=1479707241,1479705985][/doublepost]

Thanks! The topic is similar because it's a core issue that keeps coming up for us. Again, and again and again. Often it is addressed in parts, people gripe about titans and no action, people wonder why there's no interaction... but it's one picture, and in my opinion it all comes down to ending permanent, infinite invulnerability.

Limited invulnerability - sure.
Buffs - sure.
Temporary infinite invulnerability even - maybe in certain cases....

Permanent, Infinite invulnerability though - you can't lose anything ever as long as you never leave home, so by the rules of this game the winner is he who interacts as little as possible. If you never leave HB, you never lose anything. You just hunker in static plenitude. Chatting. It barely even qualifies as a "game" if there is no risk of loss though, which can lead to boredom.

Where did I mention that you or another discussed completely removing the HB invulnerability? There are several posts with you discussing limiting the HB invulnerability. Changing/limiting the HB protection would do nothing to stop turtling, anyone who is semi-intelligent would hide their bases in the void where the statistical chance of someone finding you is so low you are practically invulnerable. You should instead be focusing on ways to bring in incentives for factions to expand, because currently there aren't many. You are trying to fix a complex problem with a knee-jerk reaction focusing on one thing instead of looking at the whole picture.

In the end, all it sounds like is you trying to force everyone to play under one play style. Guess what, some people just don't want to be involved in faction drama or what these people call "pvp". Some people would like to play and have meaningful interaction and not get curb-stomped by some 12 year old every time they log off.

 

[Madman198237]

So, limited-mass invulnerability would very much work. It works like this: The station can be X mass, and the docked mass can be X mass. The station is limited in dimensional size, too (No sphere-around-undocked/unprotected-entities for you!). The HB is invulnerable up to a certain mass, and every docked entity docked before the invulnerability cap was reached is protected. So if you dock a single monstrosity made up of 400 ships to your station, and it makes total docked mass exceed the limit, then the monstrosity is no longer HB-protected, except through the station's shields. However, if you dock each ship individually, then only the ships added after/the ship that caused the mass limit to be exceeded lose protection. No random over-massing-through-use-of-alts or crap like that.

 

[StarWars1981]

So, limiting the ability to claim systems from the HB is reasonable, and it's a start to a solution.
Next, you need a reason to want this station claimed. For instance, allowing you to start the process of controlling NPC habitat locations (i.e. prebuilt stations, planetary cities, etc.) to use NPCs for your fleet. Step 1: Control system; Step 2: Subjugate specific NPC entities in-system until all remaining entities either surrender or go quiet and hope you don't take them, too; Step 3: Maintain control in the face of low-level riots up to massive revolts, depending upon the length of time you have ruled and in what fashion. For instance, taking all their goods/credits/ships/military-qualified NPCs will make the population incredibly hostile. Taking only a bit, i.e. taxes, leaves them happy enough to leave you in place, or at least not make a concerted effort to remove you.

Step 4: Rule the Galaxy

Also on the table for this would be mining bonuses (from a slow-going level suited for slow production of smaller vessels to a higher level for mid-sized ones, with additional bonuses like mining stations giving a higher bonus or whatever, all in config), FP bonuses, and perhaps something to do with NPC fleet capabilities? I.E. they are X percent stronger in friendly territory against pirates or other factions' fleets and vessels, because they are defending their homes.

So, stick (HB cannot claim advantages from systems), carrot (bonuses if you do so!), and results (you do stuff outside your HB, cause it helps you in conquering the galaxy. If you DO NOT WANT to conquer the galaxy ... the HB allows you to be the safety-net builder locked away wherever, allowing however many visitors you want around and yet being perfectly safe, and not bothering others).

The result is the goal of this thread, guys, not the carrot vs. stick debate. Find a result for your suggestions - and please do not argue about anything but specifically the suggestions presented. Assume that, as the thread is assuming (don't go into what assuming does to us), we need to incentivize expansion, or get off this thread and make your "Reasons NOT To Incentivize Expansion" thread elsewhere please, so we can keep this thread productive. And make sure you focus on results - if you can't tell us how it produces results, it's not a good suggestion yet. Figure out what you want to say before you say it, and everything will stay clearer for it. Oh, and don't argue with my suggestions, I am perfect and cannot be wrong about anything, so you must be the wrong one.

 

[Batavium]

This whole forum thread sums up StarMade. The Sandbox all the grains of sand. The base game is like this thread open to all while catering to no one.

If you want to flavor the game. Then you need talk to the Server Owners and the Admins. They can setup specific flavored versions of StarMade that cater to specific groups.

Why?

Because this game is it's own MOD. There is NOTHING you can not change in this game. Look up the .XML files in you StarMade directory anything is possible ANYTHING!

The reason this isn't used a lot is people don't often know. It can be difficult StarMade isn't easy on the server owner many many bugs!

But mostly because if you change the above then you break cross server Blueprints. Since they will only work on that server. And you really really need to love that flavor to put let say 3 months of your life into it. Only to find out that at some point the server ends because of reasons. And all your Blueprints are useless. Remember the old energy Nerf? How many walked? Everybody walked. We were that pissed!

You want a server where people get out of a Home Base?

Look up these lines in the server.cfg

SHOP_RAILS_ON_ADV = true //Advanced shops will have 4 rails dockers that can be used like a neutral homebase (anything docked is safe)

SHOP_RAILS_ON_NORMAL =　true　//Normal shops will have 4 rails dockers that can be used like a neutral homebase (anything docked is safe)

Now all shops offer safe docking. Put all your stuff in a cargo ship. Dock it. No Problem!

BUT

Any station be it a Factory or a Warp Gate or a Shipyard or a Trade Hub or whatever can than be exempt from Home Base protection....

Just to name an idea.... a flavor.

 

[KillaKrazy]

So, limited-mass invulnerability would very much work. It works like this: The station can be X mass, and the docked mass can be X mass. The station is limited in dimensional size, too (No sphere-around-undocked/unprotected-entities for you!). The HB is invulnerable up to a certain mass, and every docked entity docked before the invulnerability cap was reached is protected. So if you dock a single monstrosity made up of 400 ships to your station, and it makes total docked mass exceed the limit, then the monstrosity is no longer HB-protected, except through the station's shields. However, if you dock each ship individually, then only the ships added after/the ship that caused the mass limit to be exceeded lose protection. No random over-massing-through-use-of-alts or crap like that.

How exactly does this set-up encourage expansion? All it would do is to drive people to hide their actual bases in the void and use 2 block anchor stations to claim systems.

 

[Madman198237]

Homebase* not other stations. This solves everyone's problem with limiting HB mass and such and docked-entity exploits or whatever.

 

[KillaKrazy]

Homebase* not other stations. This solves everyone's problem with limiting HB mass and such and docked-entity exploits or whatever.

The point that MacThule was trying to get across was that limiting HB protection would encourage expansion. So again, how exactly would your proposal encourage expansion over isolation?

 

[Madman198237]

It's just an addendum to the points already made, a way in which the HB mass limit can be implemented to avoid some exploits and cheats from the start.

 

[MacThule]

Where
did I mention that you or another discussed completely removing the HB invulnerability?

-Even if you got rid of HB protection, any player with half a brain would just build his base in the void away from any claimed space.

Although to be fair, I didn't really notice that the entire rest of your post acknowledged that the main theme was more about limiting the permanent, infinite, invulnerable homebase than getting rid of it.

You should instead be focusing on ways to bring in incentives for factions to expand, because currently there aren't many.

In a game with hundreds of different weapon combinations, what incentive, realistically, could possibly outweigh Permanent, Infinitite, Free, Total Invulnerability? Nothing can. That is why with years of discussions such as this engaging hundreds of players, no sufficiently compelling incentive has been found. Nothing can override the most OP, game-breaking incentive there is - the incentive to leave their home base as rarely and briefly and possible... so people start discussing sticks - punishing players for staying in their ubertastic HBs the way the rules tell them they should. That's not right either - players can't be punished for doing what they are clearly being strongly compelled to do in order to gain access to the single biggest advantage available in the entire game; God Mode. Unless... you know of some incentive that doesn't involve punishing players for following the rules, that would induce YOU, personally, to spend tons of time away from your fortress, knowing full well that your opponents need take no such risks and probably won't?

I do not believe such an incentive exists or can be devised. Only the chance to achieve a superior buff could entice players away from the buff already gained by turtling, and what could be superior to Permanent, Infinite, Free Invulnerability?

You are trying to fix a complex problem with a knee-jerk reaction focusing on one thing instead of looking at the whole picture.

You're saying that a solution that evolved over several years involving discussions with hundreds of veteran players is "a knee-jerk reaction?" Your basis of comparison completely eludes me. Anyone can call anything anything else, but that does not make it so. The solutions being discussed are not knee-jerk reactions or anything like that. certainly not all of them, anyway. They are long-discussed, long-considered, repeatedly refined and attempt to address the root problem underlying the never-ending Cold Game status in Starmade MP. This has been a problem for large numbers of players for many for years now. Years. The response is typically "if you want that, go play something else..." So most players do. Which is why our numbers blow despite how amazing the game is.

No one on this thread has suddenly discovered just this week that players in MP turtle obsessively and is freaking out or jerking knees. This is an ancient problem and the topic of frequent discussion on the Docks and on servers.

Personally, I kind of suspect that the fact that as soon as the topic drifted onto limiting the Permanent, Infinite, Cost-Free HB Invulnerability an opposition party appeared where none was before, may actually indicate that we are on the right track in terms of identifying the source of the unbreakable turtle-or-die curse under which we all chafe. That's the way my head works, anyway. It's like... a thing that cannot spoken. Must be something to it then, eh? Or maybe my brain is bad - that is a very real possibility.

 

[Az14el]

i think homebases being lit up on faction tab is a pretty good reason to live away from it, but thats me, and thats not really expansion its hiding, but expensively!

I guess I expand when I wanna fite, plomp some fortresses in their backyards & just be generally showy around them on the map screen, FP can be a pain there but that settings usually edited to make it easier to claim & hold territory.
What would help me here is more reason to invade eachothers space than "funzies", and of course a more universally acceptable FP/Equivalent mechanic that's more realistic for the amount of time & effort we have for it and the size of the playerbase. It's easy to gain lots of FP, it drains even faster once you try to get a blob going, forget about distant outposts.

I'd love to have some RP or Practical reasons to expand, cool stuff to explore with perhaps some generated lore to discover (you'd never see me again, would be hunting this shit down on every single server), more variation in resources & their proliferation, and of course the NPC & Fauna updates to set the whole scene.

For every day my demands are not met, a NO FACTION dies.

 

[Kaamio]

A lot of this has already been said, but... what we need to "stop turtling" (aka making people subject themselves to griefing as interpreted by some) is a few things:

1: Benefit, something worth the risk of getting wiped out back to your homebase.
2: Protection, to make it feasible for you to take that risk. Offline protection mostly I guess.
3: Faction mechanics, that allow easier management of multiple faction members who aren't very familiar with each other and have to make do with only one homebase. Communist method (all stuff is shared) which is usual between friends doesn't work too well with acquaintances.
4: Purpose, to give a reason to seek the benefit.

While the final system should consider the needs of a single player in space, it doesn't have to revolve around it. This could be designed for a group of 3-10 players in faction, for example, but that's not all that relevant here I think, since scale can be adjusted. Disclaimer: I haven't been playing the game for a long time and I wasn't particularly keen on pvp then either. I don't see the point in it most of the time. I just like to build stuff and be at least halfway social and go spank some pirates.

So, on to the details:

1: Benefit.

What could provide a reason to leave your system, when you can get just about everything everywhere? More and easier, I guess. With the NPC update we're getting richer sectors (or was it systems?) that factions spread towards, so there's that. Still, claiming one rich system instead of a standard system does nothing to alleviate the issues. So, perhaps an additional mining multiplier from having the system surrounded by claimed systems? Perhaps downscale the starting multiplier a bit and work upwards with each of the neighbouring 6 systems adding some bonus to a total greater than now.

Another thing would be to make surrounded system a protected one (all stations invulnerable) and able to create passive income. Claim a buffer zone and exploit the middle? Sounds good to me. Combined with AI defense fleets this could actually make it reasonably resilient to bliz type wars and provide a defensible infrastructure.

2: Protection.

Nobody wants to be wiped out during their offline hours, that's a given I think. AI fleets will never be up to the task of defeating players who have a suitable fleet, since who hasn't beaten a large number of pirates in fights that would be suicidal against humans? Thus, it would make sense to have system control stations (aka station that has claimed the system) fitted with EVE-style invulnerability generator that kicks in after shields have dropped to a certain point (say 20%) and then being invulnerable to any attack while claiming the system and disabling any weapons on the station or docked to it. This could be a set amount of time, either with a resource or just a setting in faction block.

For example, station that is overwhelmed will start a timer of invulnerability for 15 hours for example during which the defender can organise people on site to defend it when it comes out of reinforcement. It's not perfect, especially for one person factions, but it's something to work with and if you can't defend your territory you can use the time to dismantle more valuable assets and retreat. The point is to limit the risk, not to remove it. Simply adding time to react should you be sleeping or at work/school. That said, dedicated attacker will be hampering your retreat most likely, since ships in your system will still be free prey and most likely the infrastructure stations aren't as well equipped to keep space clean as your HB is.

One idea would be to use the timer to set the reinforcement to stop at a time when you know you have time to play, for example instead of set amount of hours, it could be until 17.00 UTC. Maybe have it in faction UI so you can set the timer easily when you log off? That way, you can dictate when decicive fights happen. There could be a cooldown and/or "replenishment period" (for example 2-4 hours of inv every hour not attacked, with gauge going up to 24 or 36 hours or something) so that the attacker can have a reasonable window to strike again, or if that doesn't quite work just smash it again into reinforcement and whittle it down by using the reserve.

3: Faction mechanics.

Something on the line of making infrastructure stations generate FP to manage keeping larger areas in your control. If we want to make people spread about it needs to be easily managed without fear of running out of FP and being crippled and possibly wiped out in a few hours (or minutes should someone spot it at a foruitous moment near your homebase), basically giving you a chance to see it coming and make sure at least your homebase is safe.

Ability to easily have parts of the (home)station in personal ownership, and parts in communal use. Basically, you need a way to prevent significant damage from trusting people enough to join factions with them. You probably can't protect a faction member from owner, but protecting members from each other should be enough. Basically ability to have and build and modify their own area within the homebase would be great, without having full access to the station. For example, personal cargo storage to maintain their ability to keep their own ships and spare parts in case of loss despite some other member of the faction goes on a loss spree. I think this might be at least partially implemented already with the faction permission blocks, not sure.

Maybe add FP cost to fleets that goes up the further out from your own faction territory you take them, and is pretty low on friendly, non-contested territory. That would make maintaining strong offensive fleets require more built own system infrastructure and make it a bit easier to manage the massive casualties from AI fleets trying and probably failing to defend your space.

Point being, you should be able to band up with other players to maintain territory with at least relative ease.

4: Purpose.

I'm going to make a wild assumption that mere resource gathering in of itself isn't really that awesome. It's certainly useful to automate some of it, but if someone actually threatens you and makes it difficult to maintain, it's probably not worth it. I'm thinking that it's more about being able to stave off aggressive pushes from AI factions on your territory, where AI fleet vs. AI fleet will be reasonably balanced-ish and free you to do whatever you're doing instead of fending off scouting parties and assault fleets on two fronts or something, should you be in between two factions which seems reasonably possible. Maybe to keep away hostile players who don't want to risk getting swamped by AI derpships, or to attract people who kill those ships and salvage them at the edge of your space.

Maybe that's enough, to manage a defensive/offensive fleet in your controlled space (perhaps within x sectors of an outpost of some sort, shipyard maybe?) and to provide it with materials, and to free you to make a cargo run every now and then within your industrial systems instead of going to mining. Maybe we could figure out something else? I don't know.


Anyway, what about solo players with no time or will to engage in faction warfare? I imagine the gameplay will not significantly be altered, AI factions might be a bit annoying if they get aggressive and start spamming your system with AI ships... but maybe there can be a way around that? Some blueprints available to the "casual" player would be nice, so that you don't have to design stuff if you don't have the interest or time for it. To get people moving without it being a huge investment. Some cheapish homebase blueprints too, and defense turrets to keep them clean.

I don't think you really need any generic stick to drive people into playing the game, although I don't see why it can't be a server setting to have HB unable to claim systems or max size or whatever. If people see value in expansion they will expand, but we really should consider the playability of the game for those who don't have the time to play 3-16 hours a day. Preferably they should be able to join a faction and so on, but I don't see the benefit of robbing them of having their own little piece of space to turtle in. They might get to playing "usefully" eventually, but until then they aren't actually causing harm either. That said, maybe we could have neutral safe places to store stuff? So a loner joining a faction doesn't have to give up all their stuff and leap into the unknown? Maybe rent storage space from protected AI base, paying rent for it in advance and have the stuff confiscated if you vanish from the server and don't have it paid for anymore... the base then adding your gear to it's inventory.

Anyway, these are my ramblings for what they are worth. I think AI activity will give people incentive to build their own faction space, assuming it will give them tools to more easily defend their territory against AI and at least the less enthusiastic players looking for easy prey. When the risk of getting outright ganked is reduced to the point that in a reasonable scenario you'll be able to break even or make profit even when you get attacked within a few days, then people will probably do it. As for reasons to attack another faction's space? Maybe with single faction taking 7-12 times the space from before (1-2 central systems) and AI taking large swaths of the galaxy, perhaps real estate is actually going to matter?

 

[Lukwan]

In a game with hundreds of different weapon combinations, what incentive, realistically, could possibly outweigh Permanent, Infinitite, Free, Total Invulnerability? Nothing can. That is why with years of discussions such as this engaging hundreds of players, no sufficiently compelling incentive has been found. Nothing can override the most OP, game-breaking incentive there is - the incentive to leave their home base as rarely and briefly and possible... so people start discussing sticks - punishing players for staying in their ubertastic HBs the way the rules tell them they should. That's not right either - players can't be punished for doing what they are clearly being strongly compelled to do in order to gain access to the single biggest advantage available in the entire game; God Mode. Unless... you know of some incentive that doesn't involve punishing players for following the rules, that would induce YOU, personally, to spend tons of time away from your fortress, knowing full well that your opponents need take no such risks and probably won't?

I do not believe such an incentive exists or can be devised. Only the chance to achieve a superior buff could entice players away from the buff already gained by turtling, and what could be superior to Permanent, Infinite, Free Invulnerability?

Thanks MacThule While I have not given up on Crew & FPs to provide the needed incentives I do agree: this fact remains at the heart of the problem.

Total, limitless HB-invulnerability is a leading cause of stagnant MP servers.

-I love building things and I want limited invulnerability to remain in place.
-Variable game-modes will allow for any style of play to be chosen by admins for their server: Turtle-Friendly/Hardcore.
-We know that many things are planned to make the universe worth exploring but that will not magically fix this issue...it will just help a bit.
-HB invulnerability is not a sacred cow. The community must be able to at least discuss altering it to accommodate advancement of the MP game-meta & balance.
[doublepost=1479839584,1479838754][/doublepost]

- Crews : Like that one too. Control populated planets, control stations where we can hire them. Theses points should give crews on an exponential formula, every another crew getting more expensive to hire for each of theses points separately. Get something to expanse your empire trough the stars or do not but you'll need much more credits to do so.

Very good thinking here Scypio. This is the right kind of mechanic for creating real incentive.

Exponential: A key distinction. This means there is no entry barrier to finding good crew to expand the effectiveness of your ship & stations. This is all carrot as crews will give small buffs and everyone will have access to them. Making them get exponentially harder to find will avoid snowballing (a large faction remaining more powerful just because they were 'first').

Risk/Reward: Crews don't come knocking on your door. You have to leave your base to get them.

Drama: Crews have RPG element making them improve over time and certain players will tend to get attached to them. But...crew members can also be killed in battle. (NPCs should suffer perma-death).

Flavor: Players may be obtaining some crew-members randomly without always being able to choose their character-class. This can add variety to the play by bringing unexpected elements into your faction.

 

[KillaKrazy]

Thanks MacThule While I have not given up on Crew & FPs to provide the needed incentives I do agree: this fact remains at the heart of the problem.

Total, limitless HB-invulnerability is a leading cause of stagnant MP servers.

How exactly is HB protection the leading cause to turtling? I've read a lot of talk, but very little logical justification for the statements. Let's say they got rid of the protection, how exactly would that help the situation? The way I see it, that would just cause players to build their 1 base in the void where the statistical chance of someone happening upon it is so low the base might as well be invulnerable. There's a lot of focus on this thread about HB's but very little in the underlying issue, that there is absolutely no incentive right now to build more than 1 station or to claim additional stations. As it is, the current state of the game discourages expansion and the building of additional stations. Stations need something done to make them worthwhile, because right now they are more of a hindrance than an asset. The problem I have with this thread is that everyone is focusing on one thing (HB protection) and not looking at the underlying issues with the game. There is zero incentive to expand and build additional stations and if they removed/changed HB protection there would still be zero incentive to expand and build additional stations.

 

[Kaamio]

How exactly is HB protection the leading cause to turtling? I've read a lot of talk, but very little logical justification for the statements. Let's say they got rid of the protection, how exactly would that help the situation? The way I see it, that would just cause players to build their 1 base in the void where the statistical chance of someone happening upon it is so low the base might as well be invulnerable.

Agreed, while homebases enable turtling at reasonably central location, what causes it is the ability of others to attack you and destroy everything you have. Basically, it's a very successful griefing protection. That doesn't mean it's the bestest possible and the only choice ever available, but for the moment it's what stands between pointless gankfest (or guess the galaxy hide and seek) and reasonably playable game.

If you look at very pvp oriented games such as EVE, you can see that it has some very powerful anti-griefing mechanics in place. Capital ships can't even enter the central high sec space, pirates with low security rating get shot on sight and anyone illegally attacking others will get ganked by ridiculously overpowered police force. Although it's usually too late to prevent a gank. On top of that, you have insurances for your ships to cover most of the value when they blow up. Even more importantly, actual lucrative activity happens outside and usually many jumps and significant real time travel away from high security "noobspace".

Starmade has invulnerable homebases that can drive off most people if you arm them and protect your assets. And that's it.

Another issue is the faction point cost from holding territory, if you're not careful you can lose everything with it. Basically you have a reason to not spread your faction around and no reason to do so, as stations are generally useless to you. Gates are kind of useful, but since they show up in the map so well they are pretty much just prey.

 

[Lukwan]

How exactly is HB protection the leading cause to turtling?

Total, limitless HB-invulnerability is what that discussion is about. There is not a conspiracy to eliminate HB-invulnerability here, just a discussion about how it can be adjusted to improve the meta-game on MP servers. Lets not shut down the debate before it starts...this is how ideas evolve. If I wanted to play a SP game that pretends to be MP I would be playing NMS.

I get that the title of this thread may imply an anti-turtle agenda here but that is not is the case. If anyone has a bright idea about what would qualify as incentive please share. Trolls can go grumble under a bridge for all I care.

 

[Mariux]

hide rare pepes around the galaxy, watch everyone fight over them.