Incentives to Expansion (Anti-Turtling)

[psteiner]

What if we made the faction point consumption of a home base directly proportional to its mass including docked ships (see next paragraph) and turrets. This would make individual turtling only viable to a point where the faction points you produce on your own can no longer compensate for the FP draw of your HB. And once your FP's run out, your invulnerability goes away...

To solve the problem of griefers docking large ships to bases to quickly eliminate HB invulnerability could be eliminated by making it so ships not in your faction and not allied to you (includes neutral and other neutral/ enemy factions) that dock to basic rails and rotators (not turret axis) would not receive HB invulnerability and not draw FP.

What do you think?

 

[Kaamio]

What if we made the faction point consumption of a home base directly proportional to its mass including docked ships (see next paragraph) and turrets. This would make individual turtling only viable to a point where the faction points you produce on your own can no longer compensate for the FP draw of your HB. And once your FP's run out, your invulnerability goes away...

What do you think?

Not entirely bad idea, though I think it would be circumvented with a couple of alts joining just to bump up your FP production. Personally, I'd like to see rather more FP generation from non- system claiming stations or something to make spreading your dominion easier and to have a reason to build stuff outside your homebase. Preferably combined with some automated resource generation and area protection I suggested earlier in my wall of text.

I think that's one seriously considerable option for servers, although it does limit the aesthetics of a homebase if it's mass/size limited. Not much point in trying to make it pretty if you can fit more function in maybe link FP consumption to power generation? That way it could be large and pretty (or butt ugly sector-blob of enclosed hangars) but limited in function.

 

[StarWars1981]

Not entirely bad idea, though I think it would be circumvented with a couple of alts joining just to bump up your FP production. Personally, I'd like to see rather more FP generation from non- system claiming stations or something to make spreading your dominion easier and to have a reason to build stuff outside your homebase. Preferably combined with some automated resource generation and area protection I suggested earlier in my wall of text.

I think that's one seriously considerable option for servers, although it does limit the aesthetics of a homebase if it's mass/size limited. Not much point in trying to make it pretty if you can fit more function in maybe link FP consumption to power generation? That way it could be large and pretty (or butt ugly sector-blob of enclosed hangars) but limited in function.

There you go. There's an FP cost for system-claiming stations, and an FP gain for additional stations in claimed systems. Specifically in claimed systems only, not just random ones in unclaimed systems. The FP cost pays for the mining bonuses, and the additional stations are good targets. And if the number of stations in a system is limited further than it is (one for every 8-sector, 2x2x2, block, perhaps) now, then that might do something other than "build station, build station next sector, build station next sector, etc." for FP blowout. Perhaps a hard cap of three stations, massing (individually and minus docks) at least X mass, gaining FP at one time in the system. However, they should pay for controlling that system completely, plus supporting players online and homebase costs if online players cost FP on that specific server. Also, they should support the cost (in addition to systems) of multiple NPC crewmen, assuming of course these NPCs cost FP to maintain, which makes perfect sense and would be a interesting mechanic to work with.

 

[kingreol]

as far as PVP: its upto server owners and players. people will not naturally pvp and feel to join in it without experience. and the vast majority of players have 0 pvp experience outside pirates and massive ships griefing. events, contests. tournaments. challenges.. sandbox really needs leadership direction to get people motivated to check things out. be inviting and pick people up.

 

[MacThule]

maybe link FP consumption to power generation?

This is a good option that I have seen come up as a solution several times, including in the thread I linked above in detail.
It bypasses the need to implement any fuel mechanics in favor of existing game elements so it's easy to code and intuitive to play. I don't know if it's where you're going, probably not, but I strongly favor the idea of making power generation (after a free minimum) cost FP and have faction generate FP from claimed systems, claimed planets, and claimed stations (income possibly linked to System HP of the entity). FP would then be used to represent total resources in terms of manpower, currency, food, fuel, trade, etc, all power generation beyond the minimum would trigger FP costs, and FP could fuel special benefits like making stations invulnerable for a recurring cost. Dropping below zero FP would shut down all special benefits and reduce power generation to the minimum free amount. I would really love it if the FP cost for invulnerability were linked to mass.

 

[Shaker]

Warscoring and faction power ratings, for those who care about numbers.

For making outposts more viable, upgrade station weapons range and accuracy so that the station cant be destroyed by players with extreme range missiles without some resistance.

Change the cost per system to represent whats in it, void 0 gain, planet/asteroid are +1 per ring. homebase system is no longer free, base still perma invul while in positive faction points.

Faction power rating influences NPC faction standings and trade prices, if your weak then they sell for higher as your a pushover, higher power they will be more fair.

Faction points as we all know need a purpose besides staying positive to keep the HB invul. if it was used to upgrade faction NPCs like higher bonuses to what they do on a ship, used to hire faction NPCs or NPC factions to do missions like attack a player or go mining.

 

[Kaamio]

This is a good option that I have seen come up as a solution several times, including in the thread I linked above in detail.
It bypasses the need to implement any fuel mechanics in favor of existing game elements so it's easy to code and intuitive to play. I don't know if it's where you're going, probably not, but I strongly favor the idea of making power generation (after a free minimum) cost FP and have faction generate FP from claimed systems, claimed planets, and claimed stations (income possibly linked to System HP of the entity). FP would then be used to represent total resources in terms of manpower, currency, food, fuel, trade, etc, all power generation beyond the minimum would trigger FP costs, and FP could fuel special benefits like making stations invulnerable for a recurring cost. Dropping below zero FP would shut down all special benefits and reduce power generation to the minimum free amount. I would really love it if the FP cost for invulnerability were linked to mass.

I don't really like the idea of everything consuming FP, since I like to have a couple of ships built and project or two in the making, easily amounting like 3 ships with 2M power generation, maybe one of them with more... then again, it's up to what config allows easily. Still, it's again not impossible to think of, it might work just fine. Certainly using FP as fuel for temporary invulnerability for other stations or as currency for additional crew and other such things would be acceptable.

I'd actually prefer if FP crash didn't make homebase vulnerable so you wouldn't really have to worry about that at any point, especially if your ships might sneakily eat away your reserves. But that's just me, probably. I'd like to see the focus of faction action away from homebase, with regular stations becoming resilient enough to withstand serious attacks long enough for you to defend them. Adding automated mining and defensive fleet generation to stations that aren't homebase would maybe encourage people to invest in outposts. With the upcoming NPC update, it shouldn't be difficult to apply same mechanics to player factions for us to generate revenue and local defense forces. Assuming that the stations aren't easily gankable, we could man the stations with proper crew to get income from mining outposts when things get that far... until then I'd be happy with crewless outpost output based on something like local resources within 4-8 sectors and salvage vessels available and maybe factory capacity.

 

[Scypio]

This is the right kind of mechanic for creating real incentive.

Needs more than one tho. Maybe the same idea for owning system ? I mean, owning a system cost to players, why do we have to pay more to go further ? Damit, we should be rewarded for owning a system, to fight for and keep it under control. With a logarithmic curve to the gain, of course, to curve the systems expansion and make it not worth fighting for at some point.
However there is a problem there with owning systems with player stations and especially HB. Split your faction into one man factions, ally them and then rule half of the galaxy with HB stations. Again i'm with my idea of owning systems with invulnerable, powerless and already generated stations in each systems. Take control of that station and the system is your.

And if the number of stations in a system is limited further than it is (one for every 8-sector, 2x2x2, block, perhaps) now, then that might do something other than "build station, build station next sector, build station next sector, etc." for FP blowout.

Take into accout the mass ? I mean you can still build but that won't be one block station so it's fair to do so. It's not like stations are easy targets.

 

[Lukwan]

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.

Lets makes something clear; there are two game-modes that should remain largely unchanged. Single-player and 'build-friendly MP' should both keep full HB unlimited protection. What goes along with the discussion about turtling in MP is the need to have a specific game-mode that focuses on faction-war...where this becomes a major consideration. Any talk about limiting HB-protection is meant for this particular style of play.

What if we made the faction point consumption of a home base directly proportional to its mass including docked ships (see next paragraph) and turrets. This would make individual turtling only viable to a point where the faction points you produce on your own can no longer compensate for the FP draw of your HB. And once your FP's run out, your invulnerability goes away...

To solve the problem of griefers docking large ships to bases to quickly eliminate HB invulnerability could be eliminated by making it so ships not in your faction and not allied to you (includes neutral and other neutral/ enemy factions) that dock to basic rails and rotators (not turret axis) would not receive HB invulnerability and not draw FP.

What do you think?

Linking FP to mass makes sense to me. FP could be used as both incentive and a limiting factor on rate-of-growth.
Yes, I would assume that the protection should be limited to faction-members or station owner to avoid exploits.

as far as PVP: its upto server owners and players. people will not naturally pvp and feel to join in it without experience. and the vast majority of players have 0 pvp experience outside pirates and massive ships griefing. events, contests. tournaments. challenges.. sandbox really needs leadership direction to get people motivated to check things out. be inviting and pick people up.

Again, I feel this concern would be addressed if there was a specific game-mode that allowed the server-admin to choose and control the style of play on their particular server. I also support the idea of a hybrid PvP server that only allows formal duels and tournaments & arena fights (combat by consent) but lets people build without the worry of 'raiders' randomly showing up to destroy their builds while they are being tested un-tethered.

I'd actually prefer if FP crash didn't make homebase vulnerable so you wouldn't really have to worry about that at any point, especially if your ships might sneakily eat away your reserves.

If FPs are used to bestow invulnerability to other bases it should leave some permanent (if limited) protections on the HB at all times. This 'basic' HB protection should be considered a given regardless of what other changes take place.

 

[MacThule]

Also, I would be concerned about tying crew too deeply to planets unless they first change how planets work. A little bit because it will encourage players to fly their ships near planets more, causing more frequent planet lag of server. Mostly because a troll can simply build a fast-jumping planet-cracker and dust every planet within a dozen systems pretty quickly while the factions that control them are offline, basically forcing multiple factions to totally relocate with about an hour of trolling.
[doublepost=1479917593,1479916102][/doublepost]

Lets makes something clear; there are two game-modes that should remain largely unchanged. Single-player and 'build-friendly MP' should both keep full HB unlimited protection. What goes along with the discussion about turtling in MP is the need to have a specific game-mode that focuses on faction-war...where this becomes a major consideration. Any talk about limiting HB-protection is meant for this particular style of play.

This is agreeable. I think SP should have the option to play in easy mode with full binkies.

Again i'm with my idea of owning systems with invulnerable, powerless and already generated stations in each systems. Take control of that station and the system is your.

This is very arcade-style and would help facilitate faction wars quite a bit. Variation - invulnerable planets and claim there (I still think it's nonsense that planets are so easily destroyed); side-effect that systems without planets are permanent neutral territory and systems with multiple planets can have contested ownership. The idea of fighting over claim stations or planets to control systems and earn FP sounds like good fun. As long as I have a small, safe place to respawn and keep a fair-sized stash of materials with a few ships docked...

 

[Scypio]

This is very arcade-style and would help facilitate faction wars quite a bit. Variation - invulnerable planets and claim there (I still think it's nonsense that planets are so easily destroyed); side-effect that systems without planets are permanent neutral territory and systems with multiple planets can have contested ownership. The idea of fighting over claim stations or planets to control systems and earn FP sounds like good fun. As long as I have a small, safe place to respawn and keep a fair-sized stash of materials with a few ships docked...

I was first thinking about one station, being open and easy access like current shops, in the sector but using planets to do so can be cool if they got changes. Too laggy as it is currently, imagine two factions landing in a planet and fighting for it. I got stars in my eyes just thinking about it but the server dies in pain if there is a few ground units.
That's why i think HB should be kept how they are. Fight elsewhere and your HB is your sanctuary that nobody can touch. You can protect one of theses points with your HB and some long range weapons but only one and i'm pretty sure some creative people will still get over it.

 

[Kaamio]

Lets makes something clear; there are two game-modes that should remain largely unchanged. Single-player and 'build-friendly MP' should both keep full HB unlimited protection. What goes along with the discussion about turtling in MP is the need to have a specific game-mode that focuses on faction-war...where this becomes a major consideration. Any talk about limiting HB-protection is meant for this particular style of play.

Again, I feel this concern would be addressed if there was a specific game-mode that allowed the server-admin to choose and control the style of play on their particular server. I also support the idea of a hybrid PvP server that only allows formal duels and tournaments & arena fights (combat by consent) but lets people build without the worry of 'raiders' randomly showing up to destroy their builds while they are being tested un-tethered.

I pretty much agree. One thing I believe is that default multiplayer should have reason for "regular" free for all pvp / faction war as well as griefing protection in place. Hard core people could change the whatever systems are in place to what they want, but for the representative MP I do believe we should figure out some additional, functional grief protection as well as reason to spread out and contest territory. Once we get some of that thought out we could chip off a bit (or indeed all, should things work really well) from the current HB system.

Like I've mentioned earlier, a reinforcement timer system (such as seen in EVE) could remove the bliz-grief to a large extent, while having only edge systems vulnerable to damage could provide us with reasonably protected central systems to build into. Another option to replace or compliment homebases could be invulnerable npc stations with cargo space and docking options for players.

Using AI fleets as defense force like the AI factions are going to be using might even do the trick for area protection within your controlled area, who knows. I mean, suitably designed vessels in large enough numbers hounding enemies in your space could conceivably manage to handle most threats, provided that the area you defend can provide enough passive income to manage the losses from AI derping about with your boats. Also assuming they spawn / are built in large enough numbers instead of looking at the map and going "Oh, there's a 5 000 000 mass ship terrorising our lands! I guess these 3 fighters totaling 100 000 mass wil do. If not, I'll send 3 more! We got 500 in stock so we can do this forever!".

 

[kurosawa]

simple solution 1:

server rules
1. no HB's allowed, if a HB is found it will be deleted no questions asked.
1a. attempts to evade 1, will be result in random and massive asset deletion.

There you go free for all pvp, the only true pvp form or is that to much ?

p.s.
MP is more then just PVP, so stop with the go play SP

p.p.s.
we have the best game mode there is, open sandbox, and you need rules .....

 

[Shaker]

simple solution 1:

server rules
1. no HB's allowed, if a HB is found it will be deleted no questions asked.

Simpler solution, turn off homebase protection option in the config file.
Then watch your server die a slow and painful death as your server gets wiped by a doomcube griefer

 

[StormWing0]

Simpler solution, turn off homebase protection option in the config file.
Then watch your server die a slow and painful death as your server gets wiped by a doomcube griefer

So true, although the Doomcube Griefer would die about 20 times before they did any damage to one of my No HB Protection bases. XD

 

[Shaker]

The problem in this thread is you are all hooked up about the HB invul, without it, all the combat will be done while the enemy is offline and players will be sent back to square one without cash or blocks if they didnt prepare.

Come up with ideas for stuff to do outside of the homebase sector, like extractors on planet cores where you have to be in orbit over time to pick up the resource.
NPC callouts when they are under attack during a trade flight between stations.

 

[kingreol]

iv seen servers struggle with mixing all the play styles into one package. build sectors, etc. but the admin presence required can be rough. some ideas to ponder

Galaxy controls: the suggestion for galaxy generation and controls has been around for some time. If we could have a setup where the starting galaxy is safe, no hb required. and another galaxy is unsafe. servers could do away with homebase protections, allow new players to build and get some resources to play with the blueprints. get a feel for it, join a REAL faction and when they feel ready head out to the adventure and we really can play with our toys. but if everyone looses their shit, they will still have the newbie friendly galaxy so its not a back to 0 everything situation.

Faction controls: the faction blocks needs the option to faction a ship or station without being in a faction using player name. restrictions of course like homebasing and claiming sectors should be server-options for players that use this. the faction slot should not be a individual protect my shit slot and more a slot for community benefits and community play. 1 man factions cause lack of exploring and getting out there. and being in a one man, you only have a option to be a loose ally to a faction. our advice to people is make a 1 man faction right away, build a station, and get going. no wonder we do not have many factions around.