Minimum number of members to allow faction to protect station (and other tools for servers)

[KuramaFox]

Edit: To stress a point, these options are just that. Options. The suggested default values I listed would actually result in gameplay remaining the same for anyone who didn't go out of their way to change said options. The purpose of these options is to allow for people to make new kinds of servers without a major hassle of manually enforcing some sort of server rules involved.


At present, one issue is that the game promotes one-player factions too much. Its fine to leave that situation unchanged as a default setting, but it would be nice for servers to have some config options available to them in the event they wanted to have factions work a bit differently.

Some potential options:

Minimum Number of Members required for a faction to have protected stations. Basically, if a faction has fewer than this many players, then they do not get to protect any of their stations, including their home base. Set to 0 to disable all protected stations, including home bases.
Default Value: 1 (i.e. unless a server changes it its still the same as it is now)

Maximum number of protected stations per faction. The maximum number of stations a faction is allowed to protect, preventing anything from damaging them (or whatever is docked to them). This does NOT include the home station (as such, setting this to 0 means that only the home station is protected).
Default Value: 0

Players required for each additional protected station. Set to 0 to disable and allow the max as long as they have the minimum member count. Otherwise, this allows larger factions to have more than one protected station. Useful for a large faction that needs multiple parking stations for members to keep their ships safe.
Default Value: 0 (disabled)

Maximum Number of Player Factions. Set to 0 to disable the limits and allow an unlimited number of factions. Otherwise, the number you set is the limit for how many player factions are allowed, and once that limit is reached you cannot add more (potentially useful for a PvP server who wants only 2 or 3 factions, period).
Default Value: 0 (disabled), or some high number.




Thoughts? Comments? Heresy?

 

[Zedrackis]

I could see where the option would be nice on some servers, but would probable get abused a lot too. Personally I would like to see a limit on the number of protected stations per system, including home bases.

 

[Madman198237]

If you want to see a limit....then join a server with a limit. The whole point of a config option is to allow everybody to have their own settings, without limits.

 

[KuramaFox]

Precisely. And these config options would allow people to have limits, or to have no limits. Whichever one the server runner wants (with players going to the ones who choose the options they want).

If anything, any fears of "abuse" are about 100x more real simply from the fact that the server owner can spawn in his own stuff if he wants, or delete other player's ships with a mere /command. And if someone were to try and "abuse" these config settings somehow as a server owner, then players would simply goto the server with the default settings so they can play the game exactly as it is now with regards to factions.

 

[Daeridanii]

Personally, I'd like to see this in reverse - smaller factions can have a protected homebase while larger ones don't. See it as a bit of a grace time, and once a faction becomes "large," it is more vulnerable to attacks from smaller ones. I understand that one-player factions are a bit annoying, but having gigantic factions being totally protected just tips the scales even more in their favor.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

More hating on the one-man factions... (face palms). Seriously; why do people have such a problem with that?

 

[Madman198237]

It's the inactive one-player factions who litter the galaxy with homebases. I can understand, but, like you Dr. Whammy, wish that servers would at least allow 2 player factions instead of 3.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I'm a one-man faction and I don't go inactive until either the server closes or they do something I find unacceptable; like declare "no more one-man factions".

...Then I throw all my shit into the sun and never come back.

 

[KuramaFox]

Personally, I'd like to see this in reverse - smaller factions can have a protected homebase while larger ones don't. See it as a bit of a grace time, and once a faction becomes "large," it is more vulnerable to attacks from smaller ones. I understand that one-player factions are a bit annoying, but having gigantic factions being totally protected just tips the scales even more in their favor.

There could perhaps be a setting to do this too. But I would hate to see this be the default, because then you'd NEVER see large factions that actually play together. Those are rare enough as is.

More hating on the one-man factions... (face palms). Seriously; why do people have such a problem with that?

I have no issues with one-man factions actually. That is why all the default settings would leave the game exactly as it is now: friendly towards one-man factions. Only server runners who very explicitly want otherwise would alter them in some manner or another.

This would most likely be a subset of the PvP servers for the most part, mind you. With the right settings, you can not only discourage one-man factions, but could also encourage the existing factions to recruit more people. Your typical PvE servers and creative building servers would generally leave most or all of these settings on their default values, so as to continue allowing the game to be played as it currently is, with no penalties for faction size or anything (though perhaps allowing more protected stations for larger factions so they can have more "parking space").
.

 

[MacThule]

I like the idea of a minimum number of players for invulnerability... but it's easy to bring alt 'toons into most servers, and IMO the invulnerability principle needs a much deeper overhaul than just a member floor.

The appeal of 1-man factions is a symptom, not a problem in and of itself. Continued improvement of inter-faction and intra-faction dynamics, bringing more options & flexibility to the table for people in factions is going to encourage teaming more than eliminating options for solo players.

 

[Madman198237]

Still, one-man-faction play should always be possible, and the appeals used mostly to eliminate the appeal of having a faction merely to have an invulnerable homebase...to prevent griefing/stealing by other faction members.

The idea of a one-man-faction, right now, is based on trust. You can't trust that your faction-mates won't sabotage you horrendously, and so people want to make their own factions (Trust me, I know this well) rather than be forced to take every precaution in the book and still risk everything.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Still, one-man-faction play should always be possible, and the appeals used mostly to eliminate the appeal of having a faction merely to have an invulnerable homebase...to prevent griefing/stealing by other faction members.

The idea of a one-man-faction, right now, is based on trust. You can't trust that your faction-mates won't sabotage you horrendously, and so people want to make their own factions (Trust me, I know this well) rather than be forced to take every precaution in the book and still risk everything.

+1000...

There's an old saying; "If you want it done right, do it yourself."

If I don't want to have to deal with teammates (whether it's due to concerns over treachery, irresponsibility or both) I shouldn't have to, just to satisfy someone else's play style, whom I am not affecting in any way.

There are far more disincentives for a one man faction to cave in and allow additional members, than there are incentives for multi-player factions to want to eliminate one-man factions. Like I said before, if you create a welcoming environment that doesn't bully or over-regulate, one-player factions will stay and contribute to the game. I know I did when I was on multi-player. On the other hand, if you treat one-player factions like dirt, they're going to keep leaving and abandoning their crap on your servers. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[MacThule]

Yeah, people need to stop trying to crush out 1-member factions through negative measures, and focus more on ways to encourage larger factions through positive incentives.

The former is only discouraging players (especially new players who might not understand the game well enough to feel confident in joining a team), the latter actually has the potential to see increased numbers of larger factions.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Yeah, people need to stop trying to crush out 1-member factions through negative measures, and focus more on ways to encourage larger factions through positive incentives.

The former is only discouraging players (especially new players who might not understand the game well enough to feel confident in joining a team), the latter actually has the potential to see increased numbers of larger factions.

Agreed.

I used to be on Light vs Dark before it changed ownership. I played solo and made several alliances; serving as a paramilitary/construction contractor for several factions. I'm also a city builder and trade promoter so people would come to my home base, just for the tour and to use my public facilities (shops, factories, hospitals, parking, etc). I got several invitations to join other factions and several requests from player wanting to join me. Given that I did not fully understand how to use the new faction/public permissions, I had to decline those offers to avoid the consequences of recruiting the wrong people. I also had no way to ensure that I retained ownership of any cool creations I made while working for another faction so I declined those offers too.

There's also something to be said about the level of pride felt when building a decent sized force, taking a long hard look at it and saying; "Holy crap... I built... This!?"

Spoiler

I've seen some factions that are very welcoming of new players and all of them were friendly toward my one-man faction. In contrast, I saw a few smaller multi-player factions that were torn apart from within, due to theft, neglecting of new members and irresponsible players who got their newly issued ships trashed, among other things. Others were beat down by the upgraded NPC pirates due to poor planning.

Something to consider; since we're all anonymous online, you rarely know who it is that you're recruiting. It's all a mixed bag online; a person can join and be a worthless sack of crap, one of your best friends, someone's alt, a saboteur, a spy, a thief or a tactical genius. As such, some players eagerly put their hands in that bag and pull something out. Others may not want to press their luck.

 

[KuramaFox]

I am still confused as to why people seem to continue talking as though this suggestion is not a set of OPTIONS. Which, if implemented exactly as suggested, would default to keeping the game exactly as it is now for any server that does not alter them.

 

[Crashmaster]

Ignorance and fear perhaps?

 

[MacThule]

Honestly, I don't find thieves and saboteurs to pose much threat if the faction's assets are properly organized. The issue is, if you join a faction you have no idea if the leadership has properly organized the common wealth to insulate against theft.

The only true threat that you can never completely hedge against is espionage; both enemies gathering information about you and those trying to sow disharmony or cause other problems. I've got a good nose for those (which probably sometimes accidentally burns honest new recruits who are just... weird), but again - even joining a major faction sometimes ends in discovering that the leader(s) are hopelessly naive about screening recruits or unwilling to quickly kick troublemakers. I tend to set up my own faction and invite anyone who seems interested in joining or looks like they need a hand. If my gut says they need to go, I very politely drop them. If they want to move on, I don't hold it against them. So I spend a lot of time training and supporting new players and new server joins.

I guess all in all I, personally, don't find it hard to make a faction extremely safe and resilient against everything short of admin-backed misconduct, but I've also experienced some downright pathetic failures of leadership and understand why some players are extremely hesitant to join a team.

I'd love to see more new features that encourage and foster larger group play, and I'd also like to see solo play continue to be viable.

Perhaps the biggest problem I encounter with a mass of 1-man factions is the diplomacy screen. That's a GUI issue though - there need to be more filters and sorting options so we can conduct diplomacy without choking on 150 1-man factions, 70% of which are now (and maybe were from the start) non-entities. Perhaps also something that revokes the system claims of inactive 1-man factions more quickly after long periods of inactivity.
[doublepost=1469510519,1469510327][/doublepost]

I am still confused as to why people seem to continue talking as though this suggestion is not a set of OPTIONS. Which, if implemented exactly as suggested, would default to keeping the game exactly as it is now for any server that does not alter them.

Options are never bad.

 

[KuramaFox]

Indeed, the best way to encourage factions without ruining the current style would indeed be to make anything like this a server option (one which defaults to settings that mimic current gameplay to allow things to easily stay the same as they are now for anyone who doesn't want change).

And indeed, leaving the first suggested setting at default while adjusting the others would allow a server that encourages larger factions, while still allowing one-man factions.


That said, I wouldn't be above there being a way for a person running a server to set something up to delete any faction who hasn't had at least one member log into the server in over X amount of time (1-3 months, something like that would fit for most places), and unfactioning all factioned entities belonging to said faction.

That would not affect gameplay mind you. It would merely be something that specifically targets overly large numbers of 1-man factions lying around from people who no longer play on a given server. And simply resetting the universe from time to time is also an option that some servers use currently that effectively performs the same task.

 

[StormWing0]

Looks like it'd be interesting.

 

[NaStral]

On Light Vs Dark we enforce a minimum of 3 players to a faction rule. Currently, in order to enforce this we delete all factions under the minimum every Friday via admin command. Having such options as mentioned above would certainly be a welcome thing for servers such as mine, though the ability to cause larger factions to lose HB protection sounds intriguing. And to echo Kurama's statement, it's the availibiliy of the option that't important more than anything else.