Invulnerability and Base Raiding

[ltmauve]

Territory control mass, I likes it. Though I do think that extra mass over the TCM should give extra benefits (even at a decreased rate) After all if a faction manages to get the resources to make a system-wide borg unicomplex, they deserve a boost.

Perhaps the benefits (like your mining bonus, and perhaps shield/weapon/thrust boosts) could be based on what are built on the station? So I have to build a structure to get my mining bonus, or shield/power/weapon boosts.

I don't like this idea because it bases warfare around sitting and doing nothing. It's not my idea of engaging gameplay at all.

Well, the capture idea doesn't require that you camp out in the station. You could hack the module, then bug out and attack another station. You could keep attacking stations until you fall asleep on your keyboard for all that mechanic cares.
And if there isn't a waiting period in a persistent universe, the only captures will be made while everyone else is logged out.

1) The more members the faction has, the shorter the faction invulnerability after attack is.
2) Once the countdown is over, not only the defendants' base becomes vulnerable, but also the one owned by the attackers. This could allow the defendants to launch a counter-strike against the enemy faction.

1) Excellent
2) hmm.... I like the idea that once you attack someone, you're vulnerable to a counterattack. Though I'm thinking we want a capture system similar to the homebases for all faction stations.

 

[SeventhSandwich]

Well, the capture idea doesn't require that you camp out in the station. You could hack the module, then bug out and attack another station. You could keep attacking stations until you fall asleep on your keyboard for all that mechanic cares.
And if there isn't a waiting period in a persistent universe, the only captures will be made while everyone else is logged ou

I don't think the 'hack the module' idea is practical. People will just hide their modules in inaccessible locations, thus making their bases invincible.

 

[Snk]

I suppose that is targets while at war, but you need incentive for war. That part I don't know. Most wars are fought over expansion or acquiring something. Starmade is 'infinite', as a Sandbox it loses the ability for scarcity of items for the most part, so the logical thing in my mind is to make the wars revolve around the territory and some form of currency.

http://starmadedock.net/threads/an-...n-interactions-and-resource-acquisition.4613/

 

[GreyKnight]

The reason I referred to it as a 'pissing contest' is because it doesn't seem like a productive use of the multiplayer servers that the game gives us. If you just want to build nice things and compare them with your friends, having a server seems unnecessary.

Collaboration is a thing that people do.

 

[Sabrewulf]

We need logout INSIDE ships, so station don't need to be anymore be invunerable, and a Homeship become a true solution for little and medium factions, and big fcation have human resources to defend and travel to make far stations

 

[MrFURB]

Alrighty, we've got a good roundup of ideas coming in. Let's get them organized and discuss their strengths and faults. Now with extra indents.

First lets discuss and set out our goals. Here's what I've got from the posts so far.

1. Provide incentives for factions to expand and build without punishing smaller groups who are unable or not interested in doing so.
   
2. Promote combat between parties involved in territory contention.
3. Change 'gamey' methods of warfare (AI basecamps, midnight raids, etc) to be in line with more traditional methods instead of vastly superior to them.

1. The solution to this can be pretty straightforward. Most people assume that the easiest path to that is using Starmade's faction point system, and I'm one of them.

The current FP system rewards factions for having players who have logged on recently by generating Faction Points, and punishes factions for having more than one system claimed by deducting FP based on the territory's distance from the galactic center and from your faction home. What this means is that the statistically best way to run a faction is to have a high member count and only your home system within the galactic core claimed.
That is... Not quite what most people have in mind for a faction system, and isn't what most people expected when the first faction update came out either. That's just how things turned out.

So how can we promote expansion and the creation of claimed infrastructure within one's territory without making it mandatory for the faction's survival? Well, the easiest way to promote expansion is to tie a faction's well-being into it. Since we have such a nifty way to see a faction's health with the Faction Points, all we need is to turn territory ownership from a FP drain into an FP gain. A starting faction with one to five members should easily enough survive off of the FP generated by only their home system without having to worry about needing to expand against the push of major factions. Well, until they decide they want to grow.​

That opens up it's own set of problems that need addressing.
If territory ownership means health for the faction, then what's to stop someone from just claiming every single non-claimed system and reaping the benefits?​

Well, one solution I've thought up would be to have what is called Territory Control Mass, and since that's a lot of letters I'll just call it TCM. TCM would be a server config option for the amount in faction claimed station/base mass needed to gain the full benefit of the system's faction point generation. Assuming that in future faction updates claiming things takes FP related to the claimed object's mass, the FP generated from a system per TCM would be at least twice the FP needed to claim the same mass in ships. The TCM would have an upper limit not easily reached (50,000-100,000 mass? Dunno how big the average large faction capital station is) meaning that a very big base isn't a waste of resources. Planets, since they naturally have an exorbitantly high mass, will instead count as a smaller set amount (1-5K TCM maybe?), making a little planetary hut a good investment for some cheap TCM, but you'd still have to build a station to get the territory's full benefit.
I can already see two problems with this system though. As unpopular as they are, planetary bases should be able to be used for TCM gain. If you build this giant spooky spiky capital on a planet and still only get a paltry few TCM from it, that's not cool. Another problem is that people could easily create absolutely massive dirt/rock stations to build up TCM without spending money on an actual station or actual infrastructure.​

The second problem I see with territory ownership providing FP instead of taking it away would be that it leaves a big void in FP expenditures. White there have been plenty of hints at future expenditures, (mostly aimed in the direction of claiming anything taking FP/maintaining the claim taking FP) the above suggestions would make FP a worthless number if integrated into the current factions system as-is.
​

What are your thoughts?

 

[Planr]

all we need is to turn territory ownership from a FP drain into an FP gain. A starting faction with one to five members should easily enough survive off of the FP generated by only their home system without having to worry about needing to expand against the push of major factions. Well, until they decide they want to grow.
That opens up it's own set of problems that need addressing.
If territory ownership means health for the faction, then what's to stop someone from just claiming every single non-claimed system and reaping the benefits?

Here's the problem with that though: Once a faction has claimed a system, its next to impossible to revoke their ownership of that system unless you know exactly where the static entity is in the entire system that has the faction module, and knowing exactly where the faction module is on that entity. If a faction claims a ton of systems and hides the faction module inside a planetary segment, and you don't even know which segment it's on, you would have an extremely difficult time revoking that faction's ownership of the system, unless you had a huge fleet of titans that could destroy each segment without destroying the planet core (as destroying a planet core of a planet on which a faction module is based causes the faction to permanently own that system; this is a bug).

 

[ltmauve]

The second problem I see with territory ownership providing FP instead of taking it away would be that it leaves a big void in FP expenditures. White there have been plenty of hints at future expenditures, (mostly aimed in the direction of claiming anything taking FP/maintaining the claim taking FP) the above suggestions would make FP a worthless number if integrated into the current factions system as-is.

Then players cost FP. You need to support the players in your faction with systems. Players would cost little to no FP while on and a low amount while active.

Here's the problem with that though: Once a faction has claimed a system, its next to impossible to revoke their ownership of that system unless you know exactly where the static entity is in the entire system that has the faction module, and knowing exactly where the faction module is on that entity. If a faction claims a ton of systems and hides the faction module inside a planetary segment, and you don't even know which segment it's on, you would have an extremely difficult time revoking that faction's ownership of the system, unless you had a huge fleet of titans that could destroy each segment without destroying the planet core (as destroying a planet core of a planet on which a faction module is based causes the faction to permanently own that system; this is a bug).

Then get rid of the "claim" button. Instead, the amount of factioned mass in the system determines how much FP the faction gets. Perhaps even get rid of the idea of a system being enitrely claimed by one faction. Instead faction bases claim sectors around them.

 

[Planr]

Then get rid of the "claim" button. Instead, the amount of factioned mass in the system determines how much FP the faction gets.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here, but that doesn't change the fact that an enemy faction will still have an extremely difficult time destroying the faction module if it's hidden inside a planet segment.

Perhaps even get rid of the idea of a system being enitrely claimed by one faction. Instead faction bases claim sectors around them.

That's ridiculous, how would you even be able to show that on the galactic map? You couldn't. Factions would effectively become invisible in where they are if they just claimed a few sectors in a system, as it's impossible to see entire sectors from the galactic map.

 

[Lecic]

All I have to ask is, why? If a faction can keep most of their belongings under lock and key without any risk of losing them, then what's the entire point of making ships that have weaponry?

Because getting all of your things destroyed while you're offline is not a fun time for anyone except the griefer pulling it off.

That's ridiculous, how would you even be able to show that on the galactic map? You couldn't. Factions would effectively become invisible in where they are if they just claimed a few sectors in a system, as it's impossible to see entire sectors from the galactic map.

Oh, I've got an idea! Make it so that whoever has the most factioned mass in a system shows up as the owner. So, not claiming individual sectors, but there's no set hidden factionblock. If some jerk has a faction module hidden in a planet (lets assume natural blocks like dirt and rock are only worth .01 mass for this calculation), it'd be relatively easy to overpower by setting up a station somewhere, and you'd become the new owner of the system. You could even have ship mass count for it, so a strong fleet presence in an area allows you to temporarily conquer it.
Additionally, there could be "contested" systems, which would happen anytime two or more factions are relatively close to eachother in factioned mass within the system. They'd have a special appearance on the galaxy map and everything.

I think for faction warfare to be decent, we need a few things.

• Territory gives FP, players drain FP. FP can also be spent on things like hiring mercs or replenishing asteroid fields. Losing a system loses FP.
• Unequal Resource Distribution, and Core Miners. Gives an additional reason to conquer lots of territory, and a reason to own planets.
• AI fleets, spawnable remotely through shipyards you've built, provided they have the resources to produce them. Controllable through an RTS-like system. Can be given commands for when you aren't online for them to follow, like "patrol these sectors," "defend this base," "attack any enemy that enters this system," etc.
• Some sort of buff to stations. I like the idea of stations getting stat boosts if they have friendly stations within a system or two. I think their shields and power systems should be twice as effective, too, but that might depend on how effective the friendly stations boost is.
• Faction homebases CAN become vulnerable, but only when 1) They control no other territory 2) Their FP is at 0 or lower, as this keeps small factions that can live off just their homebase from dying, and keeps big factions from curb-stomping little ones fully into non-existence.
• The Trade Guild needs to get angry at factions that attack factions that are significantly weaker. At first they'll have increased prices, then refuse to sell at all. As the attacking of smaller factions continues, the trade guild will begin to threaten, and then send increasingly powerful fleets to attack the offending faction.

 

[ClayXros]

As a generally new player on a huge server with a few friends with no inclination for war, the fact that home bases are invincible have saved us quite a few times. There are alot of players that would go to a station just to blow it up for kicks and giggles, with ships that are bigger than my entire starbase! As for the constant argument of turrets, strong and effective turrets take alot of time to set up, as well is a base that is capable of defending itself at all. If a veteran happens to travel through my sector and sees my base as target practice, we would be screwed and there would be nothing we could do but run.

Mini rant over, I do have a suggestion. Stations remain invulnerable, however if two factions are at war with each other they are not. As in, only the faction they are fighting can destroy the home base. While war can be declared by only one side, it would at least allow for some preperation by new players, or simply the warning to abandon the base. That is my two cents.

 

[Snk]

There is a problem with faction points - they just don't make any sense. They're an artificial currency designed to upkeep a flawed system.

I think this should be more economic based. Just make resource imbalances (Some systems spawn with more ores than others) and the auto mining system proposed by keptick. (If you want a link to that thread, ask, but I am pretty sure everyone here has seen it). That way, if factions want the materials to upkeep their fleets, they would need to claim several systems. Factions would have to fight over the materials in the future, and smaller factions could just buy whatever they wanted off of larger factions.

 

[Stakhanov]

This is in great part due to Starmade being stuck in limbo , design wise. It is mostly a ship-building simulation that draws casual or uncompetitive creative players , but has a few competitive features tacked on to give the more belligerent factions things to do. Both use the same mechanics to ensure they don't lose anything not completely expendable.

Consider what happens when you have a faction homebase established on a competitive server. There is no failure state anymore , should enemies siege your base you can just jump out , resume harvesting things , disassemble your ship into a cloaking shuttle and dock to feed your module factories. No need for teammates to watch your back , or big guns to repel intruders.

For a game to be competitive , one side must be allowed to lose , at least all progression. There are plenty of Starmade servers , so you can very well switch to another if you were destroyed in one. If you have limited resources at your disposal , it makes sense to use stealth rather than advertise your one-person faction to the world. Mechanics intended to curb offline raiding should only be afforded to players with something meaningful to protect , and deactivate very quickly once territory is contested. This should never be a free pass to avoid losses because you're constantly offline or inactive. Shields and defenses should do most of the delaying. Whatever the currency involved in keeping any assets invulnerable , the cost should be very steep.

I won't elaborate on the many issues of tactical combat in Starmade , but there is also the necessity of involving manpower in offense and defense. Any idiot can fly a mass of modules to your base and wreck it ; specialized ships should be more valuable , and empower groups of players for base assaults.

 

[Winterhome]

Problem with requiring manpower for defense is that people will inevitably be annihilated just for not playing 8 hours per day.

There should be some sort of chance that an oversize attack force will fail to destroy a less massive outpost without defending players having to forego their social lives and work to keep their stuff.

 

[Snk]

Problem with requiring manpower for defense is that people will inevitably be annihilated just for not playing 8 hours per day.

There should be some sort of chance that an oversize attack force will fail to destroy a less massive outpost without defending players having to forego their social lives and work to keep their stuff.

A way to fix this would be that you could only attack factions when they're online. This should be implemented ASAP imho

 

[Lecic]

A way to fix this would be that you could only attack factions when they're online. This should be implemented ASAP imho

As it was said earlier, this is a bad system. When you're losing, it encourages you to not play the game. That is not what you want.

 

[ltmauve]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here, but that doesn't change the fact that an enemy faction will still have an extremely difficult time destroying the faction module if it's hidden inside a planet segment.

I was thinking that the capture system, whatever it is, should work for all bases. So yes you can just destroy the base with a long-range missile barrage, but if you capture it then you get to use it yourself. Even if we keep system ownership, this would still eliminate the need to blow up planets in order to get rid of ownership.

That's ridiculous, how would you even be able to show that on the galactic map? You couldn't. Factions would effectively become invisible in where they are if they just claimed a few sectors in a system, as it's impossible to see entire sectors from the galactic map.

You wouldn't be able to claim a single sector. Any sector within X sectors of a faction station will be claimed by that faction. Or rather, sectors are claimed by whichever faction has the most TCM with X sectors of it. So it isn't a single sector claim, it's an area claim, but if you are close to another faction you might not get all the area.

I can already see two problems with this system though. As unpopular as they are, planetary bases should be able to be used for TCM gain. If you build this giant spooky spiky capital on a planet and still only get a paltry few TCM from it, that's not cool. Another problem is that people could easily create absolutely massive dirt/rock stations to build up TCM without spending money on an actual station or actual infrastructure.

For the second problem: give each block type a TCM score. Dirt, plants, and rock have a TCM of 1. Decorative blocks have a TCM of maybe 10-20. System and hull blocks get a TCM of 100-150.
For the first problem, store the initial TCM of an object. Subtract that from the structure's current TCM.

 

[friendofvampires]

So all this combat talk is really scaring me :P
I'm not good at fighting, or building combative ships. I've never taken out a pirate station in my almost 400 hours of play, but I can do OK fighting the isanths. I play with my friend and we were living on an ice planet until last week, where I decided to finally move us to a station. It's not done yet(no real defenses), but it's shaping up. What seems to be suggested in this thread is that I, as a non-combative, builder/miner with a micro-faction have no real place. I rely on my invincible home base as its all I own. In a war scenario, I'd love to be a shop, or a miner, selling materials and raw resources, but I don't want the risk of losing all that. "just blueprint it" isn't a valid argument, because what do I do when I lose my large mining ship that I poured most of my resources into? I don't want to have to start again after all my progression

so story time over, I have a rudimentary idea for a system, where I could designate myself as passive, or a shop or miner or whatever, so I can build and have an invincible base, at some cost. maybe I can't use shipyards, or my weapons only work on AI/ ships that attacked me first, whatever. while other, combat factions can declare war only on other combat factions. I'm also thinking that a combat faction can have an essentially invincible home base by having supplementary stations in nearby systems that have a special something, one per station, and one station with that per home base. one might let it constantly regen shields, even under fire. one might triple the shield capacity, or increase block armor, or any number of cool things. This helps provide an incentive to have a large area, other stations, and also gives targets in a war, while keeping a home base much safer, but not invincible, from greatly overwhelming force.

This is my basic idea, and feel free to expand on the idea

 

[BDLS]

- server.cfg option to hide home base locations in faction hub
- server.cfg option to not display non-allied claimed territory on galaxy map.

(Can we hide warp gate routes yet? If not that needs to be an option)

These options would allow more interesting server dynamics. Scouting/exploring would become far more important, hiding your resources away would become a thing.

 

[ltmauve]

- server.cfg option to not display non-allied claimed territory on galaxy map.

Well, what if you've already scouted the area?
We need a better map system - and I'm talking about the ability to buy and sell maps, as well as remembering what a player "knows"

- server.cfg option to hide home base locations in faction hub

(Can we hide warp gate routes yet? If not that needs to be an option

These will be on by default, right?

where I could designate myself as passive

Maybe this should be the default for newly created factions. After all, a beginner to the game going onto their first server doesn't want to have their base captured every evening after they log off, or lose it after they take a bit of a break from the game.

Hmmm...
What sort of criteria should be used to determine if a faction should be passive or not?
First off, any faction that has been at war should not be able to be passive. No rebuilding after war without some risk.
Second, there needs to be a way for an admin to make a condition (probably territory size) that will automatically switch a faction from passive to active in war. I say territory size because we don't want someone building a huge empire that prevents other players from building near them without having to put themselves at risk.
And also, factions should be able to set themselves as active even if they don't meet the criteria.