Forums » Suggestions
On destructability of stations: This is a two-edged sword. If you allow it, there's the possibility that you will scare away users that invested lots of time&money to build a thriving station once it gets destroyed due to imbalanced user activity (we already had similar things happen). On the other hand, it would prevent the overpopulation of the universe with stations (which is a very important thing).
If you do not allow it, there would be a need for regulators that limit the number of stations per system, amongst other things. However, then you could only capture a station, not destroy it, which would give the people who lost it a chance to win it back.
To paint a picture: If you've ever played Warlords (ancient strategy game by SSG), you know how aggravating it can be if your opponent (computer) razes a city, since they cannot be rebuilt.
On a sidenote: I agree that owning stations should not be the determining actor in winning a war. It would force the game into a steady-state, and change the focus from player's combat ability-oriented gameplay towards micro management skills (which I understand is not what the devs intended, and I would also not be one to welcome it).
If you do not allow it, there would be a need for regulators that limit the number of stations per system, amongst other things. However, then you could only capture a station, not destroy it, which would give the people who lost it a chance to win it back.
To paint a picture: If you've ever played Warlords (ancient strategy game by SSG), you know how aggravating it can be if your opponent (computer) razes a city, since they cannot be rebuilt.
On a sidenote: I agree that owning stations should not be the determining actor in winning a war. It would force the game into a steady-state, and change the focus from player's combat ability-oriented gameplay towards micro management skills (which I understand is not what the devs intended, and I would also not be one to welcome it).
Nice post tosh, I completely agree.
Further thoughts: it seems unreasonable to expect players to be online 24-7 to defend their own station. I think one good solution would be to have the station vulnerable at certain times, and alert the owner of the station ahead of time through e-mail or an in-game message. That way it's not "hmm, I hope no-one attacks my station this week I better sit online guarding it" but "okay, there's going to be a big battle for our station at such and such a time, everyone better show up to help defend." By way of example look at the nation wars versus CtC. Temporally focused events are generally more intense and entertaining than a continuous steady state.
There could even be some kind of 'challenge' or 'siege' option in the form of a mission which high ranking players (or heck, even NPCs) could initiate against particular stations under the right conditions. Both sides would be alerted, and the mission would not begin for a few days to allow both sides to organize their forces/strategy.
Further thoughts: it seems unreasonable to expect players to be online 24-7 to defend their own station. I think one good solution would be to have the station vulnerable at certain times, and alert the owner of the station ahead of time through e-mail or an in-game message. That way it's not "hmm, I hope no-one attacks my station this week I better sit online guarding it" but "okay, there's going to be a big battle for our station at such and such a time, everyone better show up to help defend." By way of example look at the nation wars versus CtC. Temporally focused events are generally more intense and entertaining than a continuous steady state.
There could even be some kind of 'challenge' or 'siege' option in the form of a mission which high ranking players (or heck, even NPCs) could initiate against particular stations under the right conditions. Both sides would be alerted, and the mission would not begin for a few days to allow both sides to organize their forces/strategy.
Going back to the "just who controls a system anyway?" question...
It seems like resources are going to play a bigger role in future revisions of the game. Supposedly everything will require a certain amount of resources to create, making mining and trade vital to the success of a station. Consequently it would be very important to a station where they are getting their resources from, and who controls those resources.
It would be interesting if control of a system was measured by who controlled the resources. For example, say that the Serco own a station in a system that has been overrun by the Itani: no resources are getting through to that station. Eventually the Serco station will not have the resources needed to create ships, weapons, and items; prices would skyrocket as the supply ran dry.
What if each station had a certain "standing" with each nation, just like players? If Itani traders and miners regularly brought in more resources to that station than Serco, it seems natural that the station would grow to "like" the Itani better than the Serco. If the station was getting all its resources from the Itani, perhaps it would eventually switch allegiance to the Itani, or something to that effect. More thoughts on this here:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11684#139593
Perhaps there would be two routes to territory control; military or economic. The two would go hand in hand at any rate: in order to maintain a military presence the station would need to craft items which require resources, and to protect those resources the station needs a military presence.
Who knows in the end... territory control, taking over stations, this could all be emergent behavior from the new economy, involving not only competition between Serco and Itani, but also the Hive.
It seems like resources are going to play a bigger role in future revisions of the game. Supposedly everything will require a certain amount of resources to create, making mining and trade vital to the success of a station. Consequently it would be very important to a station where they are getting their resources from, and who controls those resources.
It would be interesting if control of a system was measured by who controlled the resources. For example, say that the Serco own a station in a system that has been overrun by the Itani: no resources are getting through to that station. Eventually the Serco station will not have the resources needed to create ships, weapons, and items; prices would skyrocket as the supply ran dry.
What if each station had a certain "standing" with each nation, just like players? If Itani traders and miners regularly brought in more resources to that station than Serco, it seems natural that the station would grow to "like" the Itani better than the Serco. If the station was getting all its resources from the Itani, perhaps it would eventually switch allegiance to the Itani, or something to that effect. More thoughts on this here:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11684#139593
Perhaps there would be two routes to territory control; military or economic. The two would go hand in hand at any rate: in order to maintain a military presence the station would need to craft items which require resources, and to protect those resources the station needs a military presence.
Who knows in the end... territory control, taking over stations, this could all be emergent behavior from the new economy, involving not only competition between Serco and Itani, but also the Hive.
Phaserlight: I'll start with the part of your suggestion that I think is an excellent idea: station standing. I think it's a good idea, I'm not sure just what things should determine it. It's something to think about. I think that at any time the owner of a station should be able to petition any government to join. If they do join, it's a defection, and could bring down military consequences.
You are correct, military and economy coincide quite often. Without an economy, you can't support a military. With a military, you can do stuff to other people's economy. With this in mind, I think a distinction needs to be made between "ownership" and "control." If you're the one who owns the station in the sector, then the sector is "yours" and it is colored on the map accordingly (depending on your allegience). However, just because you "own" the sector doesn't mean you "control" it. If you own the station but can't keep enemies from plundering your resources, then your ownership doesn't mean much. If your enemies care to, they can destroy or capture your station. Ownership is all that should be shown on the map, though.
As far as notification days in advance for a battle, I politely think that this is an awful idea. No element of surprise! Imagine having to send this email: "Hey, man, I'm going to ambush your cargo convoy this Saturday while my buddy sneak attacks your station. Act surprised." I do like the idea of sending ultimatums and trying to get your opponent to surrender peacefully, but they don't have to. The answer is like I said before, to build into your station the capability not only to build ships to sell to players but NPC guards and strike forces. You could even assign them orders and possibly have different task forces; three small forces circle wide around the sector, one circles close, and two spare forces are deployed to defend the station. They would be expensive, though, like ships (should be) and you'd have to replace them if they're destroyed. That way someone's there to defend your station when you're not. Also, maybe an automated message (this would require a lot of programming, probably) that is sent to your email or IM that alerts you WHEN AN ATTACK HAPPENS, not before. If you're able to sign on and help, fine; if not, that happens. Most stations will be owned by governments or guilds anyway, so hopefully there will be someone to fight.
Toshiro: Any change made to the game will be a two-edged sword. If this game is completely safe, it's not much fun. If there's difficulty involved in building something like a station, then you'll take pride in it. If it can be destroyed or captured, then you will invest in protecting it. It should be easier to destroy one (still hard) than to capture one, but if stations are sufficiently expensive and time consuming to build, then the benefits of capturing one are obvious, and this will keep them in game to possible be captured again. If it's destroyed, though, I think it should definately be rebuildable, maybe even some parts could be salvaged for at least scrap metal if not repairable parts.
You are correct, military and economy coincide quite often. Without an economy, you can't support a military. With a military, you can do stuff to other people's economy. With this in mind, I think a distinction needs to be made between "ownership" and "control." If you're the one who owns the station in the sector, then the sector is "yours" and it is colored on the map accordingly (depending on your allegience). However, just because you "own" the sector doesn't mean you "control" it. If you own the station but can't keep enemies from plundering your resources, then your ownership doesn't mean much. If your enemies care to, they can destroy or capture your station. Ownership is all that should be shown on the map, though.
As far as notification days in advance for a battle, I politely think that this is an awful idea. No element of surprise! Imagine having to send this email: "Hey, man, I'm going to ambush your cargo convoy this Saturday while my buddy sneak attacks your station. Act surprised." I do like the idea of sending ultimatums and trying to get your opponent to surrender peacefully, but they don't have to. The answer is like I said before, to build into your station the capability not only to build ships to sell to players but NPC guards and strike forces. You could even assign them orders and possibly have different task forces; three small forces circle wide around the sector, one circles close, and two spare forces are deployed to defend the station. They would be expensive, though, like ships (should be) and you'd have to replace them if they're destroyed. That way someone's there to defend your station when you're not. Also, maybe an automated message (this would require a lot of programming, probably) that is sent to your email or IM that alerts you WHEN AN ATTACK HAPPENS, not before. If you're able to sign on and help, fine; if not, that happens. Most stations will be owned by governments or guilds anyway, so hopefully there will be someone to fight.
Toshiro: Any change made to the game will be a two-edged sword. If this game is completely safe, it's not much fun. If there's difficulty involved in building something like a station, then you'll take pride in it. If it can be destroyed or captured, then you will invest in protecting it. It should be easier to destroy one (still hard) than to capture one, but if stations are sufficiently expensive and time consuming to build, then the benefits of capturing one are obvious, and this will keep them in game to possible be captured again. If it's destroyed, though, I think it should definately be rebuildable, maybe even some parts could be salvaged for at least scrap metal if not repairable parts.
Prof. Chaos, please note that I distinguished between capturable and destroyable, not (capturable & destroyable) and persistent. At the very least they have to be capturable, if they are destroyable, there have to be means to make it very difficult, because if you don't, there will be some troll who'll blow it up for fun. Maybe even a posse of trolls.
I don't want absolute safety. I'm fine with relative safety. But one that heavily favors those who put effort into it.
Salvageability: Good idea. That might take some of the edge off having it destroyed. The question is just: Will you be able to salvage it if it's just been destroyed, and enemy presence (capships and fighters, all of whom will try to salvage themselves) is likely to be high?
About the early warning system: I think it's a good idea. Imagine if you invested several hours, perhaps even days, not even counting money (both real and virtual), to build a giant station, then a group of evil AOL-talking griefers comes along, chops off the better part while you're asleep and then trash-talks you down about it every time you do log on ("LOL we pwnz0Red u L023R!!11!oneeleven").
With increasing value, the frustration when such things happen will rise exponentially.
I don't want absolute safety. I'm fine with relative safety. But one that heavily favors those who put effort into it.
Salvageability: Good idea. That might take some of the edge off having it destroyed. The question is just: Will you be able to salvage it if it's just been destroyed, and enemy presence (capships and fighters, all of whom will try to salvage themselves) is likely to be high?
About the early warning system: I think it's a good idea. Imagine if you invested several hours, perhaps even days, not even counting money (both real and virtual), to build a giant station, then a group of evil AOL-talking griefers comes along, chops off the better part while you're asleep and then trash-talks you down about it every time you do log on ("LOL we pwnz0Red u L023R!!11!oneeleven").
With increasing value, the frustration when such things happen will rise exponentially.
"With increasing value, the frustration when such things happen, will rise exponentially."
That will happen no matter what if we're able to build big things. Either there's no risk at all and the game is boring, or there's risk and accomplishment and frustration. Hopefully, if you've built a huge station, it will be very well defended. Another thing I've had in my mind and I'm sure others have, is turrets on the station itself. Give the station an arsenal, maybe even missiles. These would be a last line of defense (unless 10 years from now we can walk around and shoot plasma rifles to take a station), the primary being players and NPC guards.
My idea of a big station would have a powerplant/engineering secton, command center, living quarters, at least two refineries, an assembly plant for building ships to sell, an assembly plant for building addons to sell, and a dedicated assembly line for building robots. These robots would range from maintenance drones to keep up the station to fast interceptors to defend the station from attack. Assuming I'm in a guild, once the station is on its feet my next investment would be a small capital ship, a gunship. This ship would do tasks for the guild, but its primary purpose would be to help defend the station in an emergency. As the fleet and station grow, it takes more and more to succesfully attack the station, even if no members of the guild are signed in.
As for salvage, that would depend on the situation. If you have the resources and enemy presence is limited, you may be able to salvage your own station. I think there should be an advantage to the former owner of the station (takes a bit less time/money) to the salvage, since you'd theoretically be rebuilding something you know very well, having built it in the first place and lived/worked there. The more likely scenario is that the enemy, if they had the strength to destroy your station/fleet, will have the headstart in salvaging stuff. The flipside is that they are unfamiliar with your station, so it will take them a bit longer to salvage parts, and they're more likely to get free scrap metal than a free working piece (rarely an entire module, more like a "sensor array" or turret or component that they won't need to have shipped).
The ultimate goal would be to capture, since it saves the time and effort of building/salvaging. The hard part would be weakening the enemy to the point that you get the station, since it takes less delicacy to simply smash it.
It would indeed take a large posse of trolls to go around killing stations, and if there is such a posse (I agree, there's likely to be one as the player base grows), they would be a threat to many people, and people would band together to eliminate the threat. Keep in mind also, that if your station is affiliated with a nation, and you are in good standing, it is in that nation's interests to come to your aid.
That will happen no matter what if we're able to build big things. Either there's no risk at all and the game is boring, or there's risk and accomplishment and frustration. Hopefully, if you've built a huge station, it will be very well defended. Another thing I've had in my mind and I'm sure others have, is turrets on the station itself. Give the station an arsenal, maybe even missiles. These would be a last line of defense (unless 10 years from now we can walk around and shoot plasma rifles to take a station), the primary being players and NPC guards.
My idea of a big station would have a powerplant/engineering secton, command center, living quarters, at least two refineries, an assembly plant for building ships to sell, an assembly plant for building addons to sell, and a dedicated assembly line for building robots. These robots would range from maintenance drones to keep up the station to fast interceptors to defend the station from attack. Assuming I'm in a guild, once the station is on its feet my next investment would be a small capital ship, a gunship. This ship would do tasks for the guild, but its primary purpose would be to help defend the station in an emergency. As the fleet and station grow, it takes more and more to succesfully attack the station, even if no members of the guild are signed in.
As for salvage, that would depend on the situation. If you have the resources and enemy presence is limited, you may be able to salvage your own station. I think there should be an advantage to the former owner of the station (takes a bit less time/money) to the salvage, since you'd theoretically be rebuilding something you know very well, having built it in the first place and lived/worked there. The more likely scenario is that the enemy, if they had the strength to destroy your station/fleet, will have the headstart in salvaging stuff. The flipside is that they are unfamiliar with your station, so it will take them a bit longer to salvage parts, and they're more likely to get free scrap metal than a free working piece (rarely an entire module, more like a "sensor array" or turret or component that they won't need to have shipped).
The ultimate goal would be to capture, since it saves the time and effort of building/salvaging. The hard part would be weakening the enemy to the point that you get the station, since it takes less delicacy to simply smash it.
It would indeed take a large posse of trolls to go around killing stations, and if there is such a posse (I agree, there's likely to be one as the player base grows), they would be a threat to many people, and people would band together to eliminate the threat. Keep in mind also, that if your station is affiliated with a nation, and you are in good standing, it is in that nation's interests to come to your aid.
Good points. However, the posse problem persists, since they can easily re-enter combat the way the game is now. I think we are entering highly speculative terrain, where we can not make certain assumptions without being completely wrong in some regards. Example: Perhaps getting back into combat will be significantly more difficult, as you proposed in the FF thread (too lazy to link). This would reduce the probability of a griefer posse, but it's not certain at all that this will come along by the time user-creatable stations are introduced to the game.
On the 'no risk, no gain, no fun': Definitely. There has to be some chance of losing more or less important things like ships, stations, standing (woo alliteration). The problem is, as always, treading the line that satisfies the most users.
I think we veered a bit off-topic, so I'll try and wrench the rudder around:
Perhaps to facilitate the analysis of the situation, there would be strategic info networks, providing data in raw and processed form, throughout the universe, varying in quality. This quality would depend on the number of info items they receive (sightings of ships by NPCs and PCs, more about this below), number of active military ships (definition of military ship is a bit fuzzy, perhaps with less than 25% cargo hold filled, or less than 10% of total mass is cargo?) and their locations, and also number of stations and distances between them (yay, another nice algorithm to balance out).
The info network using (n)players would work something like this: If the NPC/PC is liked by a certain faction, whenever s/he docks, the ship's log would be transmitted to the faction's central station, and processed by the strategic data processing group.
This is pretty much handwaving, but I wrote this up in my break, please indulge me :)
On the 'no risk, no gain, no fun': Definitely. There has to be some chance of losing more or less important things like ships, stations, standing (woo alliteration). The problem is, as always, treading the line that satisfies the most users.
I think we veered a bit off-topic, so I'll try and wrench the rudder around:
Perhaps to facilitate the analysis of the situation, there would be strategic info networks, providing data in raw and processed form, throughout the universe, varying in quality. This quality would depend on the number of info items they receive (sightings of ships by NPCs and PCs, more about this below), number of active military ships (definition of military ship is a bit fuzzy, perhaps with less than 25% cargo hold filled, or less than 10% of total mass is cargo?) and their locations, and also number of stations and distances between them (yay, another nice algorithm to balance out).
The info network using (n)players would work something like this: If the NPC/PC is liked by a certain faction, whenever s/he docks, the ship's log would be transmitted to the faction's central station, and processed by the strategic data processing group.
This is pretty much handwaving, but I wrote this up in my break, please indulge me :)
OK. This has gotten off-topic but I’ve been thinking about what you guys are talking about. I think stations should be both capture-able and destructible but it should be really hard. Here’s my idea.
Stations will be customizable and every one will be different. But I think they should all have a few things in common. They should all have a lot of built-in armor. The only way to destroy one would be to bring a couple capships. It would just take forever with a fleet of normal ships. I’m estimating the armor on a station to start around 200,000,000 but that number could be way off. Even with 2 or 3 capships constantly firing without pause, it should take at least 3 or 4 hours to destroy the station, maybe more. This makes it seem like it’d be almost impossible to destroy a station then. But it wouldn’t be.
Stations should repair their armor very slowly. I’d say about 1% per hour. That’d mean it’d take over 4 days for a station to recover if it ever got down to 1%. So the goal would be for a fleet over players to get the station down to 70% by the end of the night. They would have already coordinated with another group of players to come launch another attack the next morning and it’d be their mission to get it down to 40%. A guild would have to plan a large-scale attack over the course of several days to destroy a station and it’s possible to do so because they repair so slowly.
Repairing a station should cost a lot of money too. I’d estimate about 50,000c per 1% of repair. So that means it would cost about 5 million credits to repair a station that got down to 1%. In reality it would cost more because you’d want the station to be constantly repairing during battle so that when the second fleet came to attack in the morning you’ve already gone from the 70% they left you at to 80%. So at the end of a really long battle it might have cost you a total of 15 million credits to repair.
I think if you get a station down to 0%, you can either continue firing to blow it up, or capture it. Of course the owner of the station can choose to self-destruct it to keep it out of the enemies hands. However, if the owner let’s the enemy take it, there can always be a counter-attack to retake the station and recover what you lost.
All the numbers I gave would be changeable, I’d imagine. For instance you could get an upgrade that would increase your armor by 20% or something. Another might increase your repair rate by 30%, etc…
This system would mean that it would take a lot of effort, money, and coordination on behalf of a lot of players to even get close to destroying a station. I think that’s the way it should be. Stations should be nearly permanent structures and it should extremely hard to destroy them. It would also take a lot of effort, money, and coordination to defend your station from a well thought-out attack. That’s also a good thing.
Stations will be customizable and every one will be different. But I think they should all have a few things in common. They should all have a lot of built-in armor. The only way to destroy one would be to bring a couple capships. It would just take forever with a fleet of normal ships. I’m estimating the armor on a station to start around 200,000,000 but that number could be way off. Even with 2 or 3 capships constantly firing without pause, it should take at least 3 or 4 hours to destroy the station, maybe more. This makes it seem like it’d be almost impossible to destroy a station then. But it wouldn’t be.
Stations should repair their armor very slowly. I’d say about 1% per hour. That’d mean it’d take over 4 days for a station to recover if it ever got down to 1%. So the goal would be for a fleet over players to get the station down to 70% by the end of the night. They would have already coordinated with another group of players to come launch another attack the next morning and it’d be their mission to get it down to 40%. A guild would have to plan a large-scale attack over the course of several days to destroy a station and it’s possible to do so because they repair so slowly.
Repairing a station should cost a lot of money too. I’d estimate about 50,000c per 1% of repair. So that means it would cost about 5 million credits to repair a station that got down to 1%. In reality it would cost more because you’d want the station to be constantly repairing during battle so that when the second fleet came to attack in the morning you’ve already gone from the 70% they left you at to 80%. So at the end of a really long battle it might have cost you a total of 15 million credits to repair.
I think if you get a station down to 0%, you can either continue firing to blow it up, or capture it. Of course the owner of the station can choose to self-destruct it to keep it out of the enemies hands. However, if the owner let’s the enemy take it, there can always be a counter-attack to retake the station and recover what you lost.
All the numbers I gave would be changeable, I’d imagine. For instance you could get an upgrade that would increase your armor by 20% or something. Another might increase your repair rate by 30%, etc…
This system would mean that it would take a lot of effort, money, and coordination on behalf of a lot of players to even get close to destroying a station. I think that’s the way it should be. Stations should be nearly permanent structures and it should extremely hard to destroy them. It would also take a lot of effort, money, and coordination to defend your station from a well thought-out attack. That’s also a good thing.
It's an interesting discussion, but player-owned and player-destructible stations are a different entire rabbit hole that will bring this thread off topic, I think. Perhaps we should move that argument elsewhere.
Phaserlight: I politely disagree with the assertion that we are off topic. The topic is: How to do Territory Control. You can't do territory control without being able to capture stations, which are the meaningful real estate in a system. You claim a wormhole or a sector rich in ores by putting a station or a fleet there (a capship being like a portable station in some cases).
FatStrat85: I like the general idea there. I think talking numbers isn't much use, but I agree it should be tough to destroy a station, and expensive to rebuild. I would rather not see it as a simple rate at which armor is restored and credits are spent. Also, if stations are to be modular, damage should be tracked seperately for each module.
Say module A is down to 60% armor. To fix this would require purchasing the proper materials (if not in stock) to build the armor back to 100%. Basically you're buying/building 40% of a layer of armor. The price of repairing the station would be the price of the materials plus the cost of paying to have it installed (pay the workers).
Module B's armor is depleted, and components 1, 4 and 5 are ruined. That module cannot perform its function until components 1, 4 and 5 are replaced either buy buying new ones or building new ones and having them shipped and installed. The module can then function, but is vulnerable until you buy and install armor.
All of these require time/money/teamwork to accomplish, and are more purposeful and fun, and make more sense for roleplay. I also think that stations (ships, too) should have the possibility of critical hits. If the owner hasn't taken enough precautions to armor or defend, say, the reactor, a hard, precise hit to the reactor can possibly blow the whole station with significant collateral damage to ships within a certain range.
Capturing a station should involve troops. If a huge fleet is able to get a station's armor down to 0, but is completely destroyed except for one small fighter, that fighter should not have the ability to capture the whole station by itself. If the armor of a docking module is reduced to 0, then the security measures are disabled and a troop transport ship can dock and unload troops. Or if another module is destroyed, and a troop transport is available with equipment to connect to a hull breach and can unload troops that way. Since we can't walk around stations with guns and FPS our way to station control, it would have to be a numbers game for now at this point. The idea is to make destroying a station hard but reasonable, capturing one significantly harder, but with much better payoff for capturing (you don't have to invest in building new). Bigger stations would obviously be tougher to beat but more enticing targets.
This system would have a realistic, variable timeframe/cost for repairing a station that is similar to building a station, rather than 1HP/sec until it's fixed.
FatStrat85: I like the general idea there. I think talking numbers isn't much use, but I agree it should be tough to destroy a station, and expensive to rebuild. I would rather not see it as a simple rate at which armor is restored and credits are spent. Also, if stations are to be modular, damage should be tracked seperately for each module.
Say module A is down to 60% armor. To fix this would require purchasing the proper materials (if not in stock) to build the armor back to 100%. Basically you're buying/building 40% of a layer of armor. The price of repairing the station would be the price of the materials plus the cost of paying to have it installed (pay the workers).
Module B's armor is depleted, and components 1, 4 and 5 are ruined. That module cannot perform its function until components 1, 4 and 5 are replaced either buy buying new ones or building new ones and having them shipped and installed. The module can then function, but is vulnerable until you buy and install armor.
All of these require time/money/teamwork to accomplish, and are more purposeful and fun, and make more sense for roleplay. I also think that stations (ships, too) should have the possibility of critical hits. If the owner hasn't taken enough precautions to armor or defend, say, the reactor, a hard, precise hit to the reactor can possibly blow the whole station with significant collateral damage to ships within a certain range.
Capturing a station should involve troops. If a huge fleet is able to get a station's armor down to 0, but is completely destroyed except for one small fighter, that fighter should not have the ability to capture the whole station by itself. If the armor of a docking module is reduced to 0, then the security measures are disabled and a troop transport ship can dock and unload troops. Or if another module is destroyed, and a troop transport is available with equipment to connect to a hull breach and can unload troops that way. Since we can't walk around stations with guns and FPS our way to station control, it would have to be a numbers game for now at this point. The idea is to make destroying a station hard but reasonable, capturing one significantly harder, but with much better payoff for capturing (you don't have to invest in building new). Bigger stations would obviously be tougher to beat but more enticing targets.
This system would have a realistic, variable timeframe/cost for repairing a station that is similar to building a station, rather than 1HP/sec until it's fixed.
Okay... I am going to refrain from mentioning any numbers whatsoever because, otherwise, I will make a very long post that is going to be not so useful in the future. I will say though that the thread has gotten a little off topic - specifically a bit more detailed than I intended.
A little recap: I think the people who have posted here generally agree that stations should be both destructible and capturable, and that territory control should be defined by who is currently occupying and defending the area. As such, no one needs to be concerned with that smallest entity that can make an official claim. Also, it is clear a change in territory control should be strictly a change in who is defending the territory (i.e. force A drives out force B -- force B has gained control of the territory from force A).
I think for station construction/upgrading/repair I would like to see observer-esque craft doing stuff; more craft = faster work; craft would have to be supplied with materials from the station.
A little recap: I think the people who have posted here generally agree that stations should be both destructible and capturable, and that territory control should be defined by who is currently occupying and defending the area. As such, no one needs to be concerned with that smallest entity that can make an official claim. Also, it is clear a change in territory control should be strictly a change in who is defending the territory (i.e. force A drives out force B -- force B has gained control of the territory from force A).
I think for station construction/upgrading/repair I would like to see observer-esque craft doing stuff; more craft = faster work; craft would have to be supplied with materials from the station.
Nice synopsis, LostCommander. That's just what I hope to see for repairing stations, repair drones. Not only would you have to have all the materials, but you would need to buy/build repair drones, and the more you have the faster it goes. You would assign them a particular module to work on, and they would pick up the appropriate parts and materials from the station hold and go to work. That way you could prioritize. Say the module that builds repair drones and station guards is broken. You could assign your only two drones to repair that, so that when they finish you can start building more drones to get the job done faster and guards to help defend your station in case it's attacked while it's vulnerable. This adds not only strategy but resource management to the game, meaning more to do and think about.
Concerning "Control".
The concept of control delves heavily into other purely social terms, such as respect, or justice, or rights. These things don't exist, unless there is a higher entity to receive, or authoritize them. Let's consider rights for a second.
In this game, there are three predominant, higher authorities. The Itani Nation, the Serco Dominion, and the UIT. These governments limit a player's actions by enforcing laws on them; "Such weapon cannot be equipped, until such a license has been attained" or "Ye'll not shoot at other players, else we'll send the hounds after ya'." The last one is a truer law, because it gives the player the option of abiding, or disregarding and then suffering the penalty.
Should we lend Territory control to a player however... and some higher laws may be bent, or entirely broken. Who's to say I can't on my own station, if I want to illegally outfit my ship? And what if I take it into my hands to end Dr. Lecter's Itani rampage once and for all? (Dr. Lecter being a Serco raider with Itani standing, who still pirates Itani in places where he can get away with it. Within Itani borders, mind you.)
How the Itani would react to such an offense, or even better, how they will catch someone in violation is something that will take consideration. Personally, I've always been for National Patrol ships. Should one monitor your illegal outfits, you're issued a fine, and determined KOS until such a fine is payed. And yes, multiple offenses ought to increase the penalty. Or, if one happens to catch you firing on Dr. Lecter, even in your own sectory, you'll suffer it the same as if you were to attack the good Doctor in regular Itani monitored space.
I'd also like to mention that I'm a supporting candidate for besieging a player owned station. Nothing would delight me more than seeing a dozen Serco Prometheus's launching volley after volley of Gemini missles at station, just out of blaster range, only leaving to replinish their ammo. Atleast, that's how *I'd* take a large, immobile station down.
The concept of control delves heavily into other purely social terms, such as respect, or justice, or rights. These things don't exist, unless there is a higher entity to receive, or authoritize them. Let's consider rights for a second.
In this game, there are three predominant, higher authorities. The Itani Nation, the Serco Dominion, and the UIT. These governments limit a player's actions by enforcing laws on them; "Such weapon cannot be equipped, until such a license has been attained" or "Ye'll not shoot at other players, else we'll send the hounds after ya'." The last one is a truer law, because it gives the player the option of abiding, or disregarding and then suffering the penalty.
Should we lend Territory control to a player however... and some higher laws may be bent, or entirely broken. Who's to say I can't on my own station, if I want to illegally outfit my ship? And what if I take it into my hands to end Dr. Lecter's Itani rampage once and for all? (Dr. Lecter being a Serco raider with Itani standing, who still pirates Itani in places where he can get away with it. Within Itani borders, mind you.)
How the Itani would react to such an offense, or even better, how they will catch someone in violation is something that will take consideration. Personally, I've always been for National Patrol ships. Should one monitor your illegal outfits, you're issued a fine, and determined KOS until such a fine is payed. And yes, multiple offenses ought to increase the penalty. Or, if one happens to catch you firing on Dr. Lecter, even in your own sectory, you'll suffer it the same as if you were to attack the good Doctor in regular Itani monitored space.
I'd also like to mention that I'm a supporting candidate for besieging a player owned station. Nothing would delight me more than seeing a dozen Serco Prometheus's launching volley after volley of Gemini missles at station, just out of blaster range, only leaving to replinish their ammo. Atleast, that's how *I'd* take a large, immobile station down.
Regarding Stations...
There needs to be some sort of upkeep, some force out there that slowly diminishes the weak stations, and leaves the stronger ones. Otherwise, there will most likely one day be a staion in *every* sector. Fortuanately, there is such a force.
You gussed it! The hive queen. So, to all you that think it'd be the worst thing let just anybody run a player controlled station, imagine someone (a n00b preferably, in this example) constructing a fresh station module, leaving for a few weeks, and then returning to find it being "collected" by a fleet of Dentek's.
I think that the Hive bots symbolizes wilderness in it's spaciest form, a constant trial that binds humanity against one common foe.
There needs to be some sort of upkeep, some force out there that slowly diminishes the weak stations, and leaves the stronger ones. Otherwise, there will most likely one day be a staion in *every* sector. Fortuanately, there is such a force.
You gussed it! The hive queen. So, to all you that think it'd be the worst thing let just anybody run a player controlled station, imagine someone (a n00b preferably, in this example) constructing a fresh station module, leaving for a few weeks, and then returning to find it being "collected" by a fleet of Dentek's.
I think that the Hive bots symbolizes wilderness in it's spaciest form, a constant trial that binds humanity against one common foe.
The Hive wilderness sounds intriguing. Maybe this could be implemented in mission strings, as well. If you're totally out of luck, you can always accept a mission of 'swabbing the deck', i.e. cleaning silly collectors off the station surface.
This'd tie in with the 'space bum' idea, and give pirates a way to spend their time when there's no trader in sight. Corvus stations will be the cleanest ever!
This'd tie in with the 'space bum' idea, and give pirates a way to spend their time when there's no trader in sight. Corvus stations will be the cleanest ever!
This way, there's a place for everyone, from the traders, to the fighters, to the mineral miners... kinda' like this thread? http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14947
Yes, and with the capital ships, even a place for RTS gamers, namely those who play Homeworld and its sequels as well as the Savage games.
Weird.... I just posted somthing about the Captain's interface in a cap ship being like playing Homeworld.... Now I read I'm not the first to say so. :)
I agree with your comment, Mynt, that "control" is subjective and relative. That's why I suggested only "ownership" be kept track of officially, and control be something that happens naturally or doesn't. If you're affiliated with a government, you would get consequences if you allowed "illegal" activities and were caught.
Well, two things would keep people from putting a station everywhere. Well, really it's just two sides of one coin. Money. It would be expensive to build a station, so most newbies wouldn't be able to just build one for the hell of it. I agree on the upkeep idea. You'd need to keep your staff/crew paid, and it costs money and resources to maintain a station. To get money to pay these fees, you either have to be constantly doing missions just to keep your pointless station running. Or, if you're smart and put your station in a major trade route or near valuable resources or in a militarily strategic position, the business will roll in. Buy ore/parts/components from traders, and build bigger stuff from them to sell to whoever you want to market to. The weaker/ineffective stations will naturally be weeded out.
If you can't pay the upkeep on a station, then at some point the station will shut down. At that point you have three options. First, you can go get the money needed to start it up again (say, ten times the weekly upkeep costs); it is still your property after all, not like you had a landlord or anything. On the other hand, if you're affiliated with a government, maybe you also need to pay a tax, and if you can't your station is comandeered by the government unless you can pay a large fee. Second, you can sell the station to someone willing to try to keep it up. Third, you can officially abandon it, and it becomes free to anyone willing to pay the fee or who wants it for scrap metal. You can go and mine it like a 'roid, but it's easier and it gets depleted. Hopefully, salvage will be possible in the future, and you can mine it for complete parts. Even if you don't abandon it, anyone will be able to come mine it for parts and metal, if you can't keep them away. That goes for hive and players, and anything NPC.
I agree with your comment, Mynt, that "control" is subjective and relative. That's why I suggested only "ownership" be kept track of officially, and control be something that happens naturally or doesn't. If you're affiliated with a government, you would get consequences if you allowed "illegal" activities and were caught.
Well, two things would keep people from putting a station everywhere. Well, really it's just two sides of one coin. Money. It would be expensive to build a station, so most newbies wouldn't be able to just build one for the hell of it. I agree on the upkeep idea. You'd need to keep your staff/crew paid, and it costs money and resources to maintain a station. To get money to pay these fees, you either have to be constantly doing missions just to keep your pointless station running. Or, if you're smart and put your station in a major trade route or near valuable resources or in a militarily strategic position, the business will roll in. Buy ore/parts/components from traders, and build bigger stuff from them to sell to whoever you want to market to. The weaker/ineffective stations will naturally be weeded out.
If you can't pay the upkeep on a station, then at some point the station will shut down. At that point you have three options. First, you can go get the money needed to start it up again (say, ten times the weekly upkeep costs); it is still your property after all, not like you had a landlord or anything. On the other hand, if you're affiliated with a government, maybe you also need to pay a tax, and if you can't your station is comandeered by the government unless you can pay a large fee. Second, you can sell the station to someone willing to try to keep it up. Third, you can officially abandon it, and it becomes free to anyone willing to pay the fee or who wants it for scrap metal. You can go and mine it like a 'roid, but it's easier and it gets depleted. Hopefully, salvage will be possible in the future, and you can mine it for complete parts. Even if you don't abandon it, anyone will be able to come mine it for parts and metal, if you can't keep them away. That goes for hive and players, and anything NPC.
There's nothing weird about it. We're just trying to come up with the simplest, smoothest, and most realisitic methods of integrating the content that makes everyday life fun. The only difference is this way we get to play with space ships along with like-minded fellows.
Call me crazy, but I often find myself likening the 5-man groups so common in World of Warcraft to such simple tasks as putting up a fence. When my buddy's galfriend comes out with ice cold lemonade, I can't help but think "Now there's a primary healer".
An excellent game has a place for everyone.
Call me crazy, but I often find myself likening the 5-man groups so common in World of Warcraft to such simple tasks as putting up a fence. When my buddy's galfriend comes out with ice cold lemonade, I can't help but think "Now there's a primary healer".
An excellent game has a place for everyone.
EDIT: Removed good-natured pun. Sorry, SuperMegaMynt.