Multiple Invincible Stations

[nightrune]

Is the goal then for a bandaid solution until the real rework happens?

 

[Malacodor]

Why not take away the control of what stations get protection?

Basically if it's surrounded on all sides by claimed territory then it's invulnerable. Creating a basic lattice. It forces combat at the edges and it gets harder to hold the larger it is due to surface area. This creates safe zones for mining as well, and reasons to hold the territory.

Homebase invulnerability is necessary to avoid losing everything you have while offline. If players should be encouraged not to dock all their ships to the homebase, there must be other bases with a guaranteed invulnerability. I'd never dock an expensive ship to a station, if I couldn't be sure that it's still there when I log back in. In other words, the loss of a station's invulnerability must be predictable in advance.

 

[StormWing0]

hmm sounds interesting. The drain for having more than one HB station should be high. Why not make it so you can only have one per galaxy? This would make it so people don't clump them all in one galaxy. A less drastic version would be no two Homebases can be within X number of sectors of each other.

 

[Lecic]

hmm sounds interesting. The drain for having more than one HB station should be high. Why not make it so you can only have one per galaxy? This would make it so people don't clump them all in one galaxy. A less drastic version would be no two Homebases can be within X number of sectors of each other.

No. It's limitations for zero reason.

 

[StarWars1981]

I really like this idea. And, of course, so predictably, I have some to add. Yay!
For FP: Territory gives. That's your incentive to expand: that's the ONLY way to get FP. Having invulnerable stations drains a constant amount of FP. Say, 3 systems/station claimed would give you a net FP of zero. This number can be anything reasonable (or unreasonable); however, you may also need limits on station size. These don't have to be hard limits; for example, limiting asteroid spawning around massive stations, or some such. You need reason to place multiple stations in systems. Perhaps a docking limit, on non-turret docks, or a docking mass limit? You can only dock so much mass to a station with so much mass; say, 75% or maybe higher. Probably 85% or so; stations can no longer support infinite numbers of capital ships on a parking stick with attached open-air factory. Although, perhaps an exception factor is in order, for stations with protected docking and no inclination to add an A-armor block.

Taking hostile territory would be necessary because, given you don't want to spend hours flying in and out of raids, you can't build on the far side of the galaxy, yet you still need territory. Perhaps if you can't move your HB without removing the station. This would make it more likely for groups to expand around their HB, given that it cannot be moved.
Assuming you want to defend it and hold it as a powerbase, it needs to be in a position to control as much of your space as possible. In practice, this means a spherical (ish, we're dealing in cubes) expansion is necessary to absolutely conform to this rule.
The reasoning is simple: the HB provides a safe base for a response fleet, be it a fleet or player ships, because it cannot be neutralized, no matter what the opponents bring. Thus, you want your response fleet close to your borders where (keep going for the explanation) the enemies will attack.

And all this is to incite combat. For instance: if you have good reason to expand, and not remain idle; and to take hostile territory for additional mining territory (assumes no extravagant bonuses and a desire for big ships) in a defensible pattern around the immobile HB (See Note); and to defend that territory to the death and destruction of expensive combat vessels; and reason to defend stations (shops and trading - cheap cargo vessels made able to earn good profits due to different prices across the galaxy), then you will, of course, defend that area - for it is more valuable than your ships and death.
Also, death FP cost should go away. It'll help with the whole Urging-People-to-Interact side of things. Including hostile interactions. Plus it takes away the FP points that need to become rarer to mean much; on default settings it's too easy to build up tons and tons of points forever. I think player points should stay, but they should gain maybe 25 (as lost at death) for every hour ONLINE; not "Active" within days. AFK doesn't count. Logged-in circling bots should not count.

Also, asteroid resource returns may need to be reduced, given that we're trying to establish an expanding game structure, where turtling up is possible, but not really beneficial, and expansion is the way to gain power. And that's the point. Plus once NPCs are really introduced into the game, we'll have some reason to expand: perhaps crewer recruitment from limited supplies of willing slaves, or NPC resources (i.e. TRADING! with different prices in different ports) that are limited by the number of NPC locations you defend/control/have access to.



(Note: hey, maybe a specific Home-Base block that must be moved? there's an idea! It can go in cargo, but not be bought, and faction members can possess only 1, ever. Lose it, and you're done, because either you've been caught with your pants down and it's in transit, or your HB is gone; it can be generated when the HB reaches X mass, and then transferred to any other station above X mass in your faction, that you wish to be HB. Before it reaches that threshold of mass, it's invulnerable and protection is NOT transferable.)


Edit 1: Cleaned text wall.
Edit 1.33: Cleaned text wall.
Edit 1.5: Fixed ideas and consolidated information into blocks.
Edit 1.66: Cleaned edits.
Edit 1.999999: Just kidding!

 

[jorgekorke]

hmm sounds interesting. The drain for having more than one HB station should be high. Why not make it so you can only have one per galaxy? This would make it so people don't clump them all in one galaxy. A less drastic version would be no two Homebases can be within X number of sectors of each other.

I don't like the idea of encouraging multi-galaxy spanning. In fact, what you said as "people clumping in one single galaxy" is not really a problem at all because first, there is not enough people in a average server to fill out one single galaxy, and second, that makes meetings and fights more frequent, and avoid the appearance of unfitting loners.

 

[Lukwan]

A number of newcomers on my old server up and bailed the second they saw the galaxy map. It was rainbow-colored and looked so picked over that a bunch of newbies though there was no room for them so they never even explored. This is unfortunate and unnecessary. The actual galaxy was mostly empty but...the remains of countless one-man factions that came and went and never returned left the place looking crowded. This is part of the problem.

I like the direction this discussion is taking because there may be a solution for getting the galaxy to 'self-clean' the detritus of abandoned but claimed sectors. It didn't help that the central systems looked like Galactus's buffet (nothing but planet-rinds...most planets eaten whole).

 

[Malacodor]

A number of newcomers on my old server up and bailed the second they saw the galaxy map. It was rainbow-colored and looked so picked over that a bunch of newbies though there was no room for them so they never even explored. This is unfortunate and unnecessary. The actual galaxy was mostly empty but...the remains of countless one-man factions that came and went and never returned left the place looking crowded. This is part of the problem.

If someone is inactive for more than x weeks without announcing a date of return, the admin should make a backup of that player's stuff and delete it from the game, at least if a galaxy is as cluttered as yours.

 

[Lecic]

Inverted FP configs can allow for single player factions to slowly be cleared up if you have the inactive offline setting drain more, so that they will eventually be removable if they don't log in enough.

 

[Lukwan]

If someone is inactive for more than x weeks without announcing a date of return, the admin should make a backup of that player's stuff and delete it from the game, at least if a galaxy is as cluttered as yours.

Sure, but I would prefer that the admin have tools to automate this to save them the tedium. I think they usually like to play the game too.

Inverted FP configs can allow for single player factions to slowly be cleared up if you have the inactive offline setting drain more, so that they will eventually be removable if they don't log in enough.

Exactly...tools.

Here is a good debate; how long does a player need to be inactive before it is not rude to dump their stuff? I'm thinking after a couple months ya gotta wonder if they are coming back. (Assuming they have made no effort to contact admin to keep in touch or log in even once.)

 

[StarWars1981]

If you can't get in contact on the forums after 2 months, you're good to take them out of the server. Backups are nice but not necessary; if you don't know where they are, and assuming nothing terribly unfortunate has befallen them, and they haven't left a message telling how long they'll be gone, it's safe to assume they have given up and left permanently.

 

[MacThule]

Lecic's original idea is still the most interesting to me; any idea that demands players use more than just their 1 invulnerable base where they park their one gigantic ship and no one can ever attack them nor can they attack anyone else because all other players are also holed up in invulnerable fortresses is of interest to me.

My question is, why do I want to bother claiming 5 supplemental entities to get an extra invulnerability slot? Considering in particular that if someone knocks out even 1 of my other bases (unless buffer bases are permitted) the invulnerability it lost. To what use could such a base possibly be put that would motivate me to go though all that trouble when my HB is still... "more invulnerable?"

 

[Nickizzy]

Lecic's original idea is still the most interesting to me; any idea that demands players use more than just their 1 invulnerable base where they park their one gigantic ship and no one can ever attack them nor can they attack anyone else because all other players are also holed up in invulnerable fortresses is of interest to me.

My question is, why do I want to bother claiming 5 supplemental entities to get an extra invulnerability slot? Considering in particular that if someone knocks out even 1 of my other bases (unless buffer bases are permitted) the invulnerability it lost. To what use could such a base possibly be put that would motivate me to go though all that trouble when my HB is still... "more invulnerable?"

Extra supplies. More mining areas. Indecinator systems. Chunk loaders for fleet mining. More power. If you can't think of a reason, make one.

 

[Malacodor]

Here is a good debate; how long does a player need to be inactive before it is not rude to dump their stuff? I'm thinking after a couple months ya gotta wonder if they are coming back. (Assuming they have made no effort to contact admin to keep in touch or log in even once.)

I'd say if players are informed beforehand, pretty much any time span the admin deems appropriate. In other cases I'd say one month with backup or three months without backup. This is for unanounced absence, of course.

 

[Sgtwisky]

My question is, why do I want to bother claiming 5 supplemental entities to get an extra invulnerability slot? Considering in particular that if someone knocks out even 1 of my other bases (unless buffer bases are permitted) the invulnerability it lost. To what use could such a base possibly be put that would motivate me to go though all that trouble when my HB is still... "more invulnerable?"

A few reason:

1. With a multi-member faction you will need to claim more territory.

2. Fleets drain FP and need to be maintained.

3. Sometimes you realize that the sector next to you has better asteroid spawns. (this always bothers me at least.)

4. You want to reduce lag at your HB. Ive even seen server admins ask players to remove some of the ships at their HB because it was too laggy when any of their members logged in.

5. It encourages RP. IMO anyway.

The only type of player I think this doesn't work for, is the lone wolf that will only live at their one HB. But that could backfire if they die enough to lose HB protection.

I think the best answer to your question is because you can. Why do I built attack fleets when everyone hugs their HB? Why do I try to build station fortresses and see how long they can last against enemies? Why do I tinker with random logic stuff? The answer? Because I can.

The mechanic would just reinforce what players already do on IFP servers. People already do it without getting the benefit of a second invulnerable base. I would assume that adding that bonus would make them want to expand even more.

It all comes down to preference, time, and style of play I suppose.

 

[Lecic]

My question is, why do I want to bother claiming 5 supplemental entities to get an extra invulnerability slot? Considering in particular that if someone knocks out even 1 of my other bases (unless buffer bases are permitted) the invulnerability it lost. To what use could such a base possibly be put that would motivate me to go though all that trouble when my HB is still... "more invulnerable?"

The time before you lost invulnerability would give you enough warning to try and react.

 

[Madman198237]

Really, I'd want to see additional stations and owned objects (Planets etc.) affect your control over a system, instead of just "Blow this one thing up to get control". Then you have 2 normal stations (This is not a final number, or even an opinion on what the number should be) in an already-claimed system to gain one extra invincible station in that system. This requires infrastructure to hold owned territory, yet allows indestructible parking. Once fleets become more intelligent, however, they should be set up to patrol your territory instead of being docked, to aid in the defense of your stations.

And, of course, if any of your stations comes under attack, it should immediately broadcast that fact, and every "patrol" fleet would come running, along with any designated (As suggested above) as a "QRF".

 

[StarWars1981]

So .. to add a suggestion to Fleet capabilities to tie in here.
First, you don't necessarily need bases to establish more protected stations; just more territory.

Second, you need a method to mass-inhibit hostile travel inside your sector. First idea is simply you cannot jump out of hostile territory, even into more hostile territory; this inhibition allows for defense stations to be placed under protection in systems at the boundaries of your controlled space. Volume expands rapidly compared to surface area, so you will quickly gain more interior sectors than exterior, and they will become defensible as you get more protected (not necessarily invulnerable, could get combat buffs as suggested above in this thread) stations to use.
Now, this jump inhibition means no hostile vessel can jump into/out of your territory: the reason being, they need to take out border sectors' defenses first to control them and gain an inroad for travelling, supply, and basing fleets out of.

Third, the suggested multiple protected stations. Invulnerable or combat buffs. They require multiple other assets, either in their system or in faction-aligned space. These COULD BE non-aligned or NEUTRAL assets, but they must have either A. some expensive functionality (shipyard of XYZ dimensions) or B. a lot of PLAYER-ADDED mass.

Now, the Fleets bit. Patrolling fleets roam around the outer 2 layers of sectors around your controlled systems, in predetermined systems. They roam around the sides closest to unaligned or hostile territory - so the parts not controlled by you. If an asset is attacked, all patrolling fleets in response distance (server config) head there immediately, and upon arrival activate sentry mode and kill everything hostile. Once all hostiles are gone, return to patrols. Also a Fleet Base would be good -basically allowing us to designate a station as a carrier and dock fleets there. That way you can shield expensive fleets from Titans by locking them down inside a defended station.

If hostiles are detected entering a system, the closest patrol fleets should be sent to investigate. Also it should give an alert to the fleets' controller telling him, next time he's online, that hey, your fleets are trying to find something in our system. Beware.

EDIT: Fixed it. All of it. It now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE.

 

[HolyCookie]

I hear you TheGT ! I will read this 3 page minibook of suggestions today but as for the OP, I like this. Maybe also make something like a "faction level" members can deposit credits into the faction funds and the faction leader can then "upgrade" the faction granting them a few bonuses along with the max amount of invulnerable stations going up. (but invulnerable stations still cost FP as lecic suggested) this prevent a spam of stations (be e.g. a spy that wants to deplete all FP) It can also be a nice system for mining bonus increasing and such, but that is just me going off track. will respond to all replies to OP suggestion later today.

 

[HolyCookie]

Homebase invulnerability is necessary to avoid losing everything you have while offline. If players should be encouraged not to dock all their ships to the homebase, there must be other bases with a guaranteed invulnerability. I'd never dock an expensive ship to a station, if I couldn't be sure that it's still there when I log back in. In other words, the loss of a station's invulnerability must be predictable in advance.

hmmm strange, I normally drop my expensive ships somewhere in the abyss for a week.

Lecic's original idea is still the most interesting to me; any idea that demands players use more than just their 1 invulnerable base where they park their one gigantic ship and no one can ever attack them nor can they attack anyone else because all other players are also holed up in invulnerable fortresses is of interest to me.

My question is, why do I want to bother claiming 5 supplemental entities to get an extra invulnerability slot? Considering in particular that if someone knocks out even 1 of my other bases (unless buffer bases are permitted) the invulnerability it lost. To what use could such a base possibly be put that would motivate me to go though all that trouble when my HB is still... "more invulnerable?"

The time before you lost invulnerability would give you enough warning to try and react.

I know a good reason. If a faction runs out of faction points those secondary invulnerable bases lose their invulnerability, along with the HB.
What if HB stays invulnerable until all secondary bases are destroyed (the ones marked as invulnerable). This means that having secondary invulnerable bases work as a buffer line of defense that actually NEED to be destroyed, giving the "to be destroyed faction" a change to predict where the enemy is going to strike next.

Like?