Okay, so there has been extensive agreement on a needed change from Deathmatch-style play to Control/Objective-style play as discussed in Combat mission paradigms: Deathmatch vs. Territory control. This thread is intended to be a discussion of how such a change might be enacted. I will try to update this list with specific suggestions as they are found and/or pointed out (if I missed any through the search function).

TRS - Escape Pods
Phaserlight - Capships as objectives

Some of the questions I would like to bring up (* = most important):
* - How does one define the control of territory; is it the exclusion of travel to/through the area, or merely exclusion from gainful economic (or otherwise beneficial) activity for an opposing side?
- Can one control territory that has neither resources nor a station?
- Within what context should the territory control system exist [can nations, factions, or guilds claim territory; are systems, sectors, or objects (e.g. stations, fields, WHs) claimed]?
- Can multiple groups share/support control over a territory and, if so, is there a primary controller, or is it even (e.g. Deneb C-10 is Serco, claimed by SCAR vs. Azek is owned by TPG, Orion, and UIT)?
- Should territory control exist as a binary (e.g. Deneb O-3 is Itani) or as a progression of levels (e.g. Sedina/new Hive - outpost>bastion>stronghold)?
* - How hard should it be to change possession of territory and under what conditions/circumstances (i.e. how should it occur)?
* - What should be the benefits of territory control, and to whom should the benefits acrue?

* - On a related note, should stations be capturable and/or destructible? Or is this question irrelevant?

Also, I will post my own suggestion sometime later; I need to think a bit more...

Sounds like a good idea but I think there should be some territories that are uncaptureable as in each race should have a certain amount of places that are always theirs. As to the other questions I'm not sure.

Tenative answers to my own questions first:

How does one define the control of territory; is it the exclusion of travel to/through the area, or merely exclusion from gainful economic (or otherwise beneficial) activity for an opposing side?
I would define the control of territory to be the ability to restrict access both into and through the territory. Therefore, currently the Serco Dominion controls its stations (hated and lower cannot dock), but does not control even a single sector in Sol II as Itani can easily pass through every one if they so desire.

Can one control territory that has neither resources nor a station?
As the game is currently, not really, as it would be nigh-impossible to restrict travel through an empty sector.

Within what context should the territory control system exist [can nations, factions, or guilds claim territory; are systems, sectors, or objects (e.g. stations, fields, WHs) claimed]?
I think individual claims should be on individual objects within sectors and that even a guild may claim territory (but not individual characters). However, it should be possible to simply unclaim a territory.

Can multiple groups share/support control over a territory and, if so, is there a primary controller, or is it even (e.g. Deneb C-10 is Serco, claimed by SCAR vs. Azek is owned by TPG, Orion, and UIT)?
Yes, but there should be a primary controller - identified whenever the territory changes hands. Thus SCAR could claim Deneb C-10 in the name of the Serco Dominion, but they could also claim an asteroid field in Helios for themselves alone.

Should territory control exist as a binary (e.g. Deneb O-3 is Itani) or as a progression of levels (e.g. Sedina/new Hive - outpost>bastion>stronghold)?
I think territory control should be a binary system where a controller may have more or less stuff in the area to defend a claim.

How hard should it be to change possession of territory and under what conditions/circumstances (i.e. how should it occur)?
I think control of a territory should be a mostly abstract concept, mostly defined by who uses and passes through a territory. As such, I would like to only color a system if a single entity controls (either primary or secondary) all stations within a system; otherwise it shall be Grey. Named/"Official" control of a sector will be identified by which controller(s) have marked is as "guarded" (and at least 1 guard should always be on patrol in such sectors); if some such guard marking is in conflict (e.g. Serco and Itani both mark every sector in Deneb as guarded without listing any secondary controller(s)), then the sector is listed as "Contested between [disputees list]" instead of "Guarded by [controller]".

What should be the benefits of territory control, and to whom should the benefits acrue?
Analogy - if I discovered a solid gold asteroid this evening and claimed it, it is still worthless to me; if it crashed in my backyard and I hired a security guard to stand watch over it for me, it is still worthless to me. Something is only worth what others will pay you for exploiting/using it. As such, I think there should be no benefits other than named/official control, as described previously, acruing to anyone unless the controller specifically attempts to make use of its territory (by sending miners to fields, refining/manufacturing in its stations, and using its convoys/traders to trade).

On a related note, should stations be capturable and/or destructible? Or is this question irrelevant?
Yes, I know this question is a can of worms, but I also think it is necessary to have an answer. I think all stations should be destructible and non-magic mechanisms should be used to mostly prevent certain stations' destruction (e.g. the Betheshee WH to Sol II guarded by a fleet of 6 HACs, 12 Teradons, 24 SCPs, and 72 SFs - the Serco Dominion Western Reserve Fleet).

Wormholes. They are the bottlenecks of our universe. Once one controls all the wormholes in a system, they essentially control all traffic in that system. Unless some force originates in a system under control, a rebellion in a sense, attackers wishing to wrest a system from an organization's control will have to start with wormholes.

Stations by wormholes help reinforce troops guarding them(Or camping, if you're into bears and marshmallows). Stations not by wormholes are able to provide supplies and a base within a few minutes, but aren't as good as stations by wormholes.

Doesn't answer all of the questions, but I didn't see anyone mentioning them.

OK, LostCommander. I like your tentative answers and would like to add my thoughts.

How does one define the control of territory; is it the exclusion of travel to/through the area, or merely exclusion from gainful economic (or otherwise beneficial) activity for an opposing side?
I would define control the same way, but it should be taken care of more abstractly. If you claim a sector, that’s fine. If you can control it, then good for you, otherwise, you may be run out and lose your claim to someone else.

Can one control territory that has neither resources nor a station?
Sure, but why? Like you said, it would be tough. But, if you control the wormholes, then you control the entire system (unless someone owns a station in your system).

Within what context should the territory control system exist [can nations, factions, or guilds claim territory; are systems, sectors, or objects (e.g. stations, fields, WHs) claimed]?
Here’s the first place I disagree with you. I think that any paying player should have the ability to claim a sector (I’ll tell how in a bit). The real test is enforcement. It’s very unlikely that a player will have the ability to control his territory, the result being that such claims wouldn’t last long. Guilds would have much better ability both financially and in manpower to defend their claim, and of course a nation would have the most ability. Anyone should be able to “gift” their territory and all its contents to anyone else not an enemy. Realistically, I would say if a traitorous Itani wanted to donate an important sector/station/wormhole to Serco, that would be realistic and interesting, but with alternate characters, this would be abused a lot.

Can multiple groups share/support control over a territory and, if so, is there a primary controller, or is it even (e.g. Deneb C-10 is Serco, claimed by SCAR vs. Azek is owned by TPG, Orion, and UIT)?
Only one (primary) controller per station/sector. If you buy/build a station as a guild, it is your station, and you have the option to claim it as an independent station or affiliated with a government. If you claim it as your own independent territory, you run the risk of conflict with other guild/governments that may dispute that claim. Maybe if you own a station affiliated with a government you pay taxes? That would make it interesting if different governments taxed differently. Ignore that as a suggestion now (taxes) maybe it’ll come up in the future. I hate taxes, but that’s what governments do, they steal your money. :)

Should territory control exist as a binary (e.g. Deneb O-3 is Itani) or as a progression of levels (e.g. Sedina/new Hive - outpost>bastion>stronghold)?
I agree, a binary system. You either own the system or not. Dispute ends in either you successfully defended your claim, or you’ve been usurped and someone else claims it now. More to follow.

How hard should it be to change possession of territory and under what conditions/circumstances (i.e. how should it occur)?
I agree, abstract. If you can clear out a sector and stake your claim, then it’s yours. If you can’t, fine. On the map, if the station is affiliated with a government, it gets a color. If not, it’s gray. If a guild gets to be a certain size, maybe the devs will grant them government status and a new nation will be born with whatever color the guild chooses.

What should be the benefits of territory control, and to whom should the benefits acrue?
Very well put, LostCommander. Whoever can reap benefits, gets benefits. If I can successfully mine valuable ores in enemy territory, I’m reaping benefits from their territory. It all depends on how well you can enforce your rule.

On a related note, should stations be capturable and/or destructible? Or is this question irrelevant?
Again, exactly as I imagine it. Every station is destructible/capturable, but it would be very difficult to do so deep into nation territory, since more defenses are available. It would be very difficult to slip past defenses to destroy a station. While it would be possible to destroy the station while a few ships still remain attempting to defend it, capturing should be much more difficult. It would be easier, but probably more expensive to just destroy the station and build your own using the scrap metal left behind.

Ok, here’s the more to follow. This is my idea how to claim a territory. The devs said something about modular stations when building new ones. A claim may be made by the presence either of a capital ship or the beginning of a station. However station building ends up working, from the moment the first module of the new station begins construction in or is towed to the sector, your claim is made (and the map is adjusted accordingly, whether you claim the territory independently or for a nation). Your claim is good as long as you can defend your new station or your capital ship (if your cap ship moves from the sector your claim is no good; it is your mobile station). If your station is captured, sector ownership changes hands; if it is destroyed, there is no claim on the sector.

There are currently not enough players for this to work well. Therefore, in addition to a production line being able to build ships for sale to other players (and maybe NPCs), the station owner may also assign the production line to build station guards (assuming the materials are available). As the station expands, you can build more and better guards. I propose that the station can also be used as a sort of command post where you can assign objectives to station guards you built, such as attacking another station, or guarding the wormhole. When there is a bigger player base, this would naturally be done away with. Hopefully all NPCs can be eliminated entirely, but it’s not a good idea yet.

Yes, it sounds like there could be chaos at times with this. Isnt’ that what it’s supposed to be? It will balance itself out, anyway, since it would be very expensive to keep making claims you can’t back up.

I think you guys have some great ideas. Territory control and guild-owned stations will completely change the game (for the better).

I wanted to add that I think the owner of territories should be able to make money by what people buy at their stations. I guess this has to do with crafting. You should make a small profit on what you sell. It wouldn't be anywhere near the full cost of the item because obviously everything has a cost to make. You might make 5 or 10 credits every time someone bought a 2000c item. Maybe you could make a few hundred credits if someone bought an expensive ship.

I think the money should go to a guild account and could be used to gain and maintain control of more territory (and to buy more stations).

I guess a lot of territory should be government-owned and not capturable. There will have to be set sectors that can be fought over. I think that only guilds should have the ability to control territory. This will force people to join or create guilds and work with other players.

I guess the devs will have to introduce more systems for this whole thing to work. Unless we do this on a merely sector level. I imagine them expanding the universe to about 5x it's current size or eventually more. Then guilds would claim entire systems. If more than one guild had a station in the same system, it would be labeled a disputed zone, a war zone, or a shared zone, depending on the situation.

Guilds will have to have much more power than they do now for this to work. They will have to be able to declare war on other guilds, in an official way, so that sytems can be labeled as I discussed earlier. Guilds will have to have friend and foe lists as well as the abilty to assign specific privilages to specific players and guilds. In other words, a guild will be able to set what guilds and specific players can dock at their stations and who will be shot at upon entering their space.

Professor Chaos - No on the NPC removal bit. I NEVER want NPCs removed entirely, nor even significantly diminished in importance. One of my favorite things about this game is its attempt to make PCs and NPCs even and interchangable, and I believe it is one of the very important differences from EVE.

Yes, FatStrat85, we already know stations will be able to profit from local refining, manufacturing, production, and repair. Additionally, if a station can post missions below cost which people take, then it can profit that way as well. We also know that there will be more systems released with VO 2.0.

No, station income should not automatically go to a guild account unless the station owner chooses to set this as an option. I want my own station! :)

I think player owned stations would be cool but might be a little much. If we restricted ownership to guilds, it'd be more realistic and manageable. Imagine every player having a station or multiple stations. There'd be random stations in every sector. Plus, that doesn't encourage group cooperation. Maybe individual players can own cap ships.

In regards to NPC ships; I'd like to see NPC ships eventually restricted to just the hive. Obviously that would be after the player base vastly expands. I can't really see how that would be a bad thing.

Well whatever ends up happening with territory and stations, it'll be an improvement. I wish we could get a time frame from the devs on when we can expect to see these things. How about December?! Maybe a little too optomistic? Well, I can still dream.

There would not be stations in every sector because the monetary cost and upkeep would be prohibitive. Games can exist without forcing group cooperation and group cooperation is not some holy grail of video game goals. This is not EVE and I love AI; leave me my NPCs! :)

PCs will almost always be both more flexible and generally better than NPCs - it is not necessary to force players to trust each other in order to encourage group cooperation. You can encourage group without discouraging, and certainly without denying, independent game play.

Well said, LostCommander. Players should never be forced into anything, merely enabled.

Like he said, costs would be prohibitive. Not artificially so, I hope, but based on supply/demand/competition. Even if a station popped up in every single sector, they would not all succeed. It would be like the westward expansion in America. Little settlements and towns popped up all over, but only a few thrived and became big. A lot died out, and a lot stayed small.

With regards to profits, I imagine stations to be like mini Sim-City. You would save your profits to spend on expanding your station. If you build manufacturing plants, you can build stuff. What it costs you to build stuff depends on how much you spend on gathering materials. What profit you make depends on how good sales are and what prices you set. Any profit a station gets should go directly to its owner, be it a player, a guild, or a government. Most stations would be guild owned, since they have more resources available than most players. A persistent, hard-working player could conceivably get one, or conquer one, though.

As for official declarations of war. The rules of war are whatever is agreed upon by the participants, and can be broken at any time. If there is to be official declaration, let it be done in-game, and not with a form to fill out to tell the server that there's a war. If you declare war, notify your enemy, and post your formal declaration on the role-playing boards and in-game on station boards and the news. If you have to tell the game before you wage war, there's no possibility of sabotage and subterfuge and unprovoked attacks. Conflict should not be regulated by the game, but by how the players regulate themselves. I think that the map should simply note ownership by whom, and not-owned.

I also think every territory should be capturable. The only time this would be a problem is if one faction completely won the war, which I don't think will happen, especially if the player base grows. Besides, without permadeath, no side will be easily wiped out without willingly assimilating themselves into another faction. New factions will spring up, and there will always be war, just like in the real world. Especially if there is an infinitely expanding universe, which I expect there will be.

I do think reducing (eventually) NPCs to hive-bots is an acceptable compromise. The Hive is an old sci-fi cliche, but oh, well. I like to have something to shoot at guilt-free, other than Itani players, who always kill me easily.

Whst do you have against NPCs??? Player cant take all the traiding to themselves. If it were the case the galactic economy would collapse. We need the NPCs. In real life I do not want to be some nameless employee of a huge company. Why would I do that in a sci-fi game??? That's why we got NPCs! (and droids soon :P)

Point taken, and that's why I'm not advocating the immediate removal of NPCs. I just hope that at some distant future there are enough players who enjoy trading enough that NPCs are pointless. It probably won't happen completely, but it is quite realistic to scale them back significantly in the future. Maybe to the point of just a few traders and station guards. Only time will tell what NPC population is fun/realistic.

Trust me you will never have a fleet of human player trading aquean ore. Gaining 40 credits per cu. Only the NPCs will do that part of the job. Because while the 40 credit/cu might represent a profit of 50% it is way to slow for the players.

For example I prefer trading Sedina Chocolate and get 3k for every 10 I spend which is only 30%. SImply because if I were to invest all my cash into it I would make a decent amount of money FAST. Unlike trading stuff at 65% interest but with a cost of say 100credits/cu.

We need the truckers, and only the NPCs will be the reliale truckers out there.

Like I said, it would probably never happen, but it would be great if there were that many players.

The reason you never see a fleet of human players trading aquean is because we don't have a dynamic economy. If price were driven by supply and demand, and no one did any runs, the supply would get low and the price would rise, and it would become profitable. It would stabilize somewhere, and a few players would make good money on it. The price is practically fixed right now.

Professor Chaos, if you let the game have a completely laissez-faire dynamic economy, with or without NPCs, what you will get will be a stabilization of the cost of transportation at some c/cu based on how much most people value their time, the danger of the route, and the average or median time/(jump*cu) (the time it takes a player to move 1cu 1 jump) that the player base can attain. The reason this will happen even with NPCs is because, assuming we can hire NPCs, players will be competing for NPC services and bidding according to what they can get PCs to do it for them.

I know, they're making NPCs more and more like PCs, and there probably won't be a time when it's realistic to get rid of NPCs. I just think it would be cool. Way to burst my bubble, man! Oh, and I think we've gotten way off topic.... my fault, I guess.

Yeah, way off topic - but it was fun. :)
I don't think your bubble needs to be burst entirely - we may still eventually have the number of players you are hoping for; we will simply have them and the NPCs.

bUmP , great thread, like it alot. Keep up the work and lets hope these ideas get implemented really soon.

[Stamp Of Approval]

As long as it doesn't become "the one with most stations in the system wins" sorta thing, That's fine. To be the "owner" of the system, you should be the only for occupying it. If contested, the system should be considered grey.

It will be interesting to see minor factions come out of that. Guilds controlling sytems could be a lot of fun. Of course, military operations by major factions could give them a hard time.

I guess to join a "faction" army or remain unaffiliated could be fun...

That's exactly what I hope, minor factions to be created. In time they may become major factions. I want to see a more dynamic universe, rather than two artificial factions that fight because that's what they're supposed to do.

As for "the one with the most stations in the system wins," there would rarely be a reason for more than a few station in a system. Maybe if there's a particularly rich source of materials, there can be several clustered stations, maybe even two in one sector. Otherwise, they would just compete with each other economically and not all would survive. With more systems added continually and the possibility of genuine exploration (hopefully even searching for wormholes), the game will expand outward instead of getting too dense to support itself. I imagine on a large scale it would work like "Civilization," and on a small scale like "SimStation." Whoever owns the station in the sector, the sector is their color. Once their station is destroyed, the sector is grey (or if their station is nonaligned). If it's captured, the sector changes color accordingly. "Contested" should simply happen, and not be a formal "sector status."