Read by Schine The Nomadic Revolution [Motherships/Capital Ships as Homes]

[Blaza612]

I've made a new thread on this, which completely changes the whole thing. Link: Capital Ships and Motherships

Spoiler: Original Suggestion

There's been a lot of talk when it comes to Capital Ships, and how they can be implemented. This is going to be both a suggestion for Capital Ships/Motherships as homes to be implemented, as well as a place for this to be Discussed.

The Suggestion​

I personally would like to live as a nomad, I live on my ship, and I die on my ship. From the arguments that've been present, it's evident that people have a desire to live as nomads, in which everything they own is on one ship in which most duties a station covers will be present.

How to get to capital ships:
This is an area I hope to get more opinions on, but at the moment, I personally like the idea of upgrading a ship core for a price of both resources and credits. I've covered this in my Core Overhaul suggestion.

This would still be sticking by the idea of not needing a station via a few changes. Firstly, refineries and micro-assemblers would be allowed on standard ships, to allow a player to acquire the resources to upgrade the core. In order to get more parts, one would have to rely on shops and buying them, thus having a mass requirement creates the problem of this, as shops aren't the most efficient way of getting parts.

What a Capital Ship does:
A Capital Ship will essentially be a mobile station. It can have the majority of features that a station does, except it can move freely as a ship.

Of course, stations becoming redundant arises as a problem, there of course needs to be balancing, right? Wrong, the balance exists within the mind. People are either Hermits or Nomads, which tends to be a 1:1 ration, meaning half the population would rather live on a ship than a station, and vice versa.

People will always desire to have a home, a place where they can be sure is there, where they can feel safe. It's a cognitive thing, and there will always be plenty of people who would much rather have a station for a home rather than a ship for a home.

Capital ships won't be able to have warp gates (yet can still use them), but will get a boost to their jump range, with a multiplier of three, allowing it to jump 1.5 systems at a time. The Capital Ship can also be designated a faction home, which will in-turn make it a Mothership.

The Capital Ship will be able to use:

• Factories (All levels and as many enhancers as desired)
• Shop modules (You can be a travelling merchant)
• Undeathinators (These would be replaced with clone creation/storage)
• Shipyards (These would be hard enough to put on a ship, no need to nerf)

The Mothership:
The Mothership is essentially your home. It's your life as a nomad, you're born in it, you live in it, you die in it. The Mothership is a significantly better version of the Capital Ship.

The Mothership has increased resistance as it's a faction home, though not invulnerable. The soft-cap for power regen will be significantly bigger, and the jump drive range will be a total of 4x the standard, allowing to jump through two systems in total. The Mothership will also have an undeathinator, but it have to use clone creation/storage if cloning is added into the game. However, anyone not in your faction would have to use clones to respawn on the Mothership.

Clones:
Clones are my idea in order to balance respawns on ships, and would be cool overall. Effectively, you have to create and store clones in vats, which can be placed. Once a clone is created, a player may imprint onto them, which will make the clone theirs, and allow them to respawn there. Anyone can imprint on clones, if provided the necessary permissions, however they will be able to manually imprint on them with the right equipment, as you don't need the vats exclusively to imprint.

This can add another tactic to boarding, but due to this, you can terminate any clones, whether they've been imprinted or not. You will be given biomass for their termination, which can be used to create more clones. Clones would be able to move, so one could have a public cloning service in which they imprint a customer, and give them the vat with the imprinted clone.

So, that is my lengthy suggestion to allow for nomads to freely exist as nomads, and live on their Capital Ships/Motherships.

Vive la revolution!

 

[Mork2]

When jump drives and warp gates first came out there was a mention of capital ships using hyperdrives. I can't seem to find a useful link though. There was some talk about enabling capital ships use some station only items but there was suppose to be a penalty for being a capital ship and each station only system installed. But it was just talk at the time. I think its on the back burner list of things to do sometime.

 

[Ixalite]

I would prefer a couple of changes to your idea:
The first is that all "station" components, when installed on the ship, should have a negative effect to the ship. My best suggestion would be to give them a much MUCH higher "mass" number than other blocks, meaning that a capital ship would not be able to accelerate at all well (and would require more jump drive blocks). Additionally, I would suggest a large increase in the power requirements for station components.

The second is that ships carrying station components should not be given any bonus to make them better than other ships. No "Mothership" flag, no higher power regen softcap. They should be treated just like other ships. This is to prevent them from having an unfair advantage, and being used as the spearpoint in combat. Your home is what you protect, not what you attack with.

The third is that, like other systems, space station systems must be inoperable if the ship is in shutdown state (overheated). If you die in combat, you can spawn at your mothership, but if that ship is overheating, you respawn at 2,2,2, just as though your normal spawn had been destroyed. This should make it possible to actually capture someone's mothership.

TLDR:
1. More systems = make the ship weaker
2. More systems = not make the ship stronger
3. Station systems work like ship when on ship.

 

[starhaiden]

I don't want capital ships to be able to move using thrust I prefer than to be only able to use warp drives or something similar. Also I want them not be able to jump into a sector that already has a station or two capital ships.

 

[Mork2]

I think the idea behind the hyperdrive was it put you in an alternate area where you piloted you ship manually at ftl speeds but couldn't stop moving forward till you stopped the drive and dropped back into normal space. Cause you can't turn very well its not a precision instant navigation system tool like a jump drive. I imagine that when the system does come in there are going to be balancing issues.

I just hope however its implemented that you can convert your existing titans so you don't have to rebuild them entirely from scratch all over again.

Maybe a capital can have a station mode where you have to completely stop and can't move and setup time to make station facilities available and to move around you have to unsetup to move and suffer a some kind of movement penalty for being a capital. Kind of like siege mode on dreadnoughts in eve-online unless they changed it in the last couple of years.

 

[Mariux]

I would like to see capital ships as factories/shipyards, but this is a little too... Complicated.

 

[Blaza612]

I would prefer a couple of changes to your idea:
The first is that all "station" components, when installed on the ship, should have a negative effect to the ship. My best suggestion would be to give them a much MUCH higher "mass" number than other blocks, meaning that a capital ship would not be able to accelerate at all well (and would require more jump drive blocks). Additionally, I would suggest a large increase in the power requirements for station components.

The second is that ships carrying station components should not be given any bonus to make them better than other ships. No "Mothership" flag, no higher power regen softcap. They should be treated just like other ships. This is to prevent them from having an unfair advantage, and being used as the spearpoint in combat. Your home is what you protect, not what you attack with.

The third is that, like other systems, space station systems must be inoperable if the ship is in shutdown state (overheated). If you die in combat, you can spawn at your mothership, but if that ship is overheating, you respawn at 2,2,2, just as though your normal spawn had been destroyed. This should make it possible to actually capture someone's mothership.

TLDR:
1. More systems = make the ship weaker
2. More systems = not make the ship stronger
3. Station systems work like ship when on ship.

I would like to know the purpose of these changes, as they're just unnecessary nerfs to Capitals/Motherships. Also, a Mothership is a faction home, it should be extremely difficult to capture. And with the fact that Motherships are homes, I find it hard to believe that people would attack with them, since they'll have to account for many other systems taking their power. Weapons on a Mothership/Capital would be extremely inefficient, even without the proposed nerfs.

I don't want capital ships to be able to move using thrust I prefer than to be only able to use warp drives or something similar. Also I want them not be able to jump into a sector that already has a station or two capital ships.

Why? If you have to dedicate more power to running the extra systems, which'll in turn take up more mass, why should Capitals/Motherships be forced to that form of movement? They'll already be slow enough.

I think the idea behind the hyperdrive was it put you in an alternate area where you piloted you ship manually at ftl speeds but couldn't stop moving forward till you stopped the drive and dropped back into normal space. Cause you can't turn very well its not a precision instant navigation system tool like a jump drive. I imagine that when the system does come in there are going to be balancing issues.

I just hope however its implemented that you can convert your existing titans so you don't have to rebuild them entirely from scratch all over again.

Maybe a capital can have a station mode where you have to completely stop and can't move and setup time to make station facilities available and to move around you have to unsetup to move and suffer a some kind of movement penalty for being a capital. Kind of like siege mode on dreadnoughts in eve-online unless they changed it in the last couple of years.

This has been discussed on a different thread before, but I will re-iterate the argument due to this being a new thread.

The whole purpose of a Capital/Mothership at this point is to allow us to not need to use a station. While technically, it still wouldn't require a station, it will still feel as if we're using a station. We want to feel as if we're on a ship, and sort out the complications of these systems being on a ship for our lifestyle within the game. This will make the overall feel of the Capital/Mothership feel restricting to the point where it'd be simpler to just use a station.



The whole point of being a Nomad isn't to have to be forced into the ideology that stations are vastly superior, we wish to use Capitals/Motherships as our homes, and there isn't any reason why we should be forced into a particular play-style which is station-centric. The balancing is already present and I've still added some to compensate. Why exactly though do you feel that Nomads should be restricted to this play-style, in a sandbox game.

 

[starhaiden]

1. so they are easy to board and land ships on.
2. So they aren't used an flying server crippling mother ship that chase after and destroy everything, with it's super weapons and countless turrets. By making so they can't go into the same sector as a station it would force the mother ship owners to send ships out to scout and destroy stations.
3. so stations don't become just warp gates.

 

[Blaza612]

1. so they are easy to board and land ships on.
2. So they aren't used an flying server crippling mother ship that chase after and destroy everything, with it's super weapons and countless turrets. By making so they can't go into the same sector as a station it would force the mother ship owners to send ships out to scout and destroy stations.
3. so stations don't become just warp gates.

1. Why should they be any more easier to board than normal ships? If they're a home, then logic would dictate that they'd be harder to board, but for the sake of game, they aren't.
2. Again, they have to deal with all of the other systems taking their power and adding significantly, thus making weapons not an option for Capitals/Motherships
3. We've been over this, stations will not be made redundant as there will always be people who would much rather have a stationary home rather than a mobile one. Not only that, but the big factions (Which make up a large portion of players) will be using stations as relying on a single Mothership won't exactly be an option for them.

 

[SomethingSlimy]

I really hate Planets in StarMade, so I like this suggestion.

 

[shadowulf]

Well put, Blaza612. As we have said in other threads, this is a sandbox. No additional debuffs are needed to balance station blocks usable on ships. And if this thread comes to be integrated, it would be irratating if we can't do this.
http://starmadedock.net/threads/improving-stations-planets.21500/

 

[Newbatron]

I can't wait to be able to "live" in my ship like they do in the game FTL. That would be so awesome.

 

[Zaphord]

I agree with motherships not being able to enter a sector with a station, which would necessitate the need for smaller ships to ferry people to and from the mother ship and stations. It would also prevent someone from rolling in and unloading all their fighters right outside your base, so you'd have some time to mount a defense during an attack. This also allows someone to siege a station, park your mother ship a sector away and keep sending ships out to take it out, all the while defending your mother ship from incoming ships the station is sending after you.

 

[Lecic]

Motherships have no place in the future of the game. The current "everyone lives in a single HB in a single claimed system" garbage is going to go away, and since motherships are essentially a mobile version of that, they will be worthless.

 

[Ixalite]

I would like to know the purpose of these changes

The proposed purpose of these changes is for game balance. I had a big long rant, but I deleted it. Station style systems are a large benefit to a ship. They should also provide a determent in order to balance them, and make it a choice whether to install them.

 

[Blaza612]

The proposed purpose of these changes is for game balance. I had a big long rant, but I deleted it. Station style systems are a large benefit to a ship. They should also provide a determent in order to balance them, and make it a choice whether to install them.

I personally would prefer to have the rant. :P

However, on the topic of balance, why should a station be so superior? Your asking to debuff Motherships and deter players from them for the sake of stations being superior, but what purpose do we have making stations superior, especially since they'll always be used? Stations provide significant bonuses to fleets, the whole Mothership idea will work mainly for solo or small factions, so that they can fly around and be the Nomads they want to be. It'll be impossible for say a 16 player faction to ALL live on a single Mothership. I personally want to be a travelling merchant with a small crew, who also contracts out ship designs. On another server, however, I want to make my own faction and use stations and actually have a home. This shows that even in me, who's fighting to be a free Nomad, will still want to use stations and will still want to have my play-style around them, thus they'll be just as relevant if Capitals/Motherships become a thing.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445319608,1445319439][/DOUBLEPOST]

I agree with motherships not being able to enter a sector with a station, which would necessitate the need for smaller ships to ferry people to and from the mother ship and stations. It would also prevent someone from rolling in and unloading all their fighters right outside your base, so you'd have some time to mount a defense during an attack. This also allows someone to siege a station, park your mother ship a sector away and keep sending ships out to take it out, all the while defending your mother ship from incoming ships the station is sending after you.

I half agree, on one hand, it would be rather unbalanced to not include it, but on the other hand, it'd be so cool to unleash a swarm of drones onto a vulnerable station and obliterate it. :P

I guess it could be a config setting, not sure to what it defaults to though. I personally think that a max of 4 Capitals (Mothership = 2 Capitals) in a sector, with the station not being relevant to the count, as I would like to be a travelling merchant, so sitting at station and selling stuff would be one way I do it. :P

 

[AnthonyAnderson]

I was reading this over and noticed nobody brought up a possible fuel-based system means of limiting these mother-of-all-ships ships.

A new crafting module that can't be linked to any enhancers with a one-per-ship limit. Create a new meta (is that the right word??) item that can't be withdrawn/added from the module (let's call it a Core Drive), can't be traded. It can only be generated over time by the ship itself. Longer jumps requires more of the item, which in turn would require more time to refuel/cooldown. Larger-mass ships would require more fuel.

We could even have different types of Core Drives, but only one per ship. A higher production rate, but lower capacity \\ Higher cap, lower production\\ Higher Cap/Production, but negative impact on shielding \\ improves shields, but reduces capacity and production

I didn't get past Battleships in Eve, but iirc the jump ships in that game definitely required fuel to jump, which had to be bought/produced elsewhere.

 

[Blaza612]

I was reading this over and noticed nobody brought up a possible fuel-based system means of limiting these mother-of-all-ships ships.

A new crafting module that can't be linked to any enhancers with a one-per-ship limit. Create a new meta (is that the right word??) item that can't be withdrawn/added from the module (let's call it a Core Drive), can't be traded. It can only be generated over time by the ship itself. Longer jumps requires more of the item, which in turn would require more time to refuel/cooldown. Larger-mass ships would require more fuel.

We could even have different types of Core Drives, but only one per ship. A higher production rate, but lower capacity \\ Higher cap, lower production\\ Higher Cap/Production, but negative impact on shielding \\ improves shields, but reduces capacity and production

I didn't get past Battleships in Eve, but iirc the jump ships in that game definitely required fuel to jump, which had to be bought/produced elsewhere.

I've been toying with the idea of fuel myself in my Ideas for Thrust Update suggestion, but more having different engine types, of which would be best suited to a particular size of ship/role. There was a type that was best for capitals, which in turn required fuel (it was more of a conventional drive)

 

[Ixalite]

why should a station be so superior?

I am not saying make a station in any way superior. What I am saying is that hypothetical motherships be given both good and bad points to distinguish them from other ships. By your idea, no player should ever want to enter combat in anything BUT a mothership. You have given these mobile home-bases every advantage of an immobile base, as well as every advantage of a ship, but no downsides whatsoever.

I stand by my guns that any ship should be able to mount any block, but that the blocks should (of themselves) push the ships that mount them toward certain roles. A ship with a lot of harvest beams might make a good mining ship. A ship with many guns and shields would make a good warship. A ship with many refineries and all of your stuff stored on it might make a good home base.


The advantages of a mothership would be:
1. Strategic Mobility. Your enemy would not know where your mothership was in order to attack it.
2. Tactical mobility. You can flee enemies directly. (using normal engines and normal jump drives. No bonuses)
3. assault force multiplyer. You can respawn much closer to combat and get another ship to rejoin the attack.
4. mobile shipyard. You could construct wave after wave of AI ships to defend or attack.

The disadvantages of a mothership SHOULD be:
1. Vulnerablility. The ship should have exactly the same weaknesses as any other ship.
2. "normally station" components should be very heavy, limiting Tactical mobility, and increasing Vulnerability.
3. Station components should not work if the ship is overheating. (just like any ship component)
4. Station components should consume more power than they currently do, increasing both vulnerability, and decreasing offensive capability of the mothership. A mothership would not attack with cannons, but rather by spawning a squadron of fighters. It should not have the power available to do both.

 

[Blaza612]

I am not saying make a station in any way superior. What I am saying is that hypothetical motherships be given both good and bad points to distinguish them from other ships. By your idea, no player should ever want to enter combat in anything BUT a mothership. You have given these mobile home-bases every advantage of an immobile base, as well as every advantage of a ship, but no downsides whatsoever.

I stand by my guns that any ship should be able to mount any block, but that the blocks should (of themselves) push the ships that mount them toward certain roles. A ship with a lot of harvest beams might make a good mining ship. A ship with many guns and shields would make a good warship. A ship with many refineries and all of your stuff stored on it might make a good home base.


The advantages of a mothership would be:
1. Strategic Mobility. Your enemy would not know where your mothership was in order to attack it.
2. Tactical mobility. You can flee enemies directly. (using normal engines and normal jump drives. No bonuses)
3. assault force multiplyer. You can respawn much closer to combat and get another ship to rejoin the attack.
4. mobile shipyard. You could construct wave after wave of AI ships to defend or attack.

The disadvantages of a mothership SHOULD be:
1. Vulnerablility. The ship should have exactly the same weaknesses as any other ship.
2. "normally station" components should be very heavy, limiting Tactical mobility, and increasing Vulnerability.
3. Station components should not work if the ship is overheating. (just like any ship component)
4. Station components should consume more power than they currently do, increasing both vulnerability, and decreasing offensive capability of the mothership. A mothership would not attack with cannons, but rather by spawning a squadron of fighters. It should not have the power available to do both.

I see where you're coming at, and I do agree with station parts using more power and being heavier, but the debuff to these shouldn't be too significant. Also, with 3, I'd imagine that would be implemented with this, just because they're Capitals/Motherships doesn't mean they aren't ships. :p

However, being able to respawn/activate a clone should still be available, you just can't create any new ones.

For 1, that would still apply to Capitals and Motherships, however, since Motherships are faction homes, they should still have some sort of extra protection, similar to current faction homes. They're not invincible, but a bit harder to kill.