Forums » Suggestions
Lootable Conquerable Stations Mk2
Anytime a station is captured and held thereafter for a minimum of 15 minutes, the active conquerors receive 1 random, non-ship item from the inventory of each user on the defeated key list who has been active in the sector over the last 24 hours.
-establish a log in the HUD (similar to guild bank log) where each addition/removal is permanently indicated for each player, including time stamp.
Example:
ARF, Harpo and Itani Silencer conquer Latos I8 from 13GF conglomerate, of which YT-1300, JakP and Dethtag were active in sector within the last 24 hours and were on the key that was defeated. The station is held for more than 15 minutes.
ARF, Harpo and Itani Silencer each receive 1 item each from YT, JakP and Dethtag.
They might get carbonic, they might get a trophy, they might get an EHA.
There would be:
-No limit to how many times inventory grabs would happen.
-No incentive to retake a station from allies (lest you steal their items).
-Additional incentive to conquer stations over current conditions (to see what free items you might get).
Potential problems:
-Smart people would be more deliberate and efficient in how they manufacture so they leave less valuable items idle in their inventory. However, the allure of getting a capship would require them to take the risk of having idle capship part inventory at one time or another.
-Conniving people might try to remove people from key prior to station going down to prevent looting. This should not be allowed (i.e. even if someone is removed from key, their having been active as a key user is not forgotten).
-Gives reason to not participate in station battles for fear of losing an item in defeat.
-Similarly, gives reason to not use conquerable stations carelessly, since presence in the sector as an active key holder risks inventory.
-Players may try to avoid looting by storing inventory inside of docked ships. All cargo, whether in ships or otherwise, should be vulnerable. Only exception would be addons in add on ports.
-establish a log in the HUD (similar to guild bank log) where each addition/removal is permanently indicated for each player, including time stamp.
Example:
ARF, Harpo and Itani Silencer conquer Latos I8 from 13GF conglomerate, of which YT-1300, JakP and Dethtag were active in sector within the last 24 hours and were on the key that was defeated. The station is held for more than 15 minutes.
ARF, Harpo and Itani Silencer each receive 1 item each from YT, JakP and Dethtag.
They might get carbonic, they might get a trophy, they might get an EHA.
There would be:
-No limit to how many times inventory grabs would happen.
-No incentive to retake a station from allies (lest you steal their items).
-Additional incentive to conquer stations over current conditions (to see what free items you might get).
Potential problems:
-Smart people would be more deliberate and efficient in how they manufacture so they leave less valuable items idle in their inventory. However, the allure of getting a capship would require them to take the risk of having idle capship part inventory at one time or another.
-Conniving people might try to remove people from key prior to station going down to prevent looting. This should not be allowed (i.e. even if someone is removed from key, their having been active as a key user is not forgotten).
-Gives reason to not participate in station battles for fear of losing an item in defeat.
-Similarly, gives reason to not use conquerable stations carelessly, since presence in the sector as an active key holder risks inventory.
-Players may try to avoid looting by storing inventory inside of docked ships. All cargo, whether in ships or otherwise, should be vulnerable. Only exception would be addons in add on ports.
(Just as a reference for readership-over-time and posterity, here is a link to my original "Pillaging of Conquerable Stations" thread, and then Aryko's voluntary-risk+marketplace "Sort of Lootable Conquerable Stations" thread).
How are players who are users on both keychains affected? This could affect players' ability to maintain a neutral position if users on the new owner's keychain aren't excluded.
A problem with the 15-minute holding time would be that an enterprising person(s) could take the station when activity is low with only themselves on the key.
Make the active in-sector requirement date back to the station's ownership.
I'd say this is worth considering as an option.
A problem with the 15-minute holding time would be that an enterprising person(s) could take the station when activity is low with only themselves on the key.
Make the active in-sector requirement date back to the station's ownership.
I'd say this is worth considering as an option.
How are players who are users on both keychains affected? This could affect players' ability to maintain a neutral position if users on the new owner's keychain aren't excluded.
Good point. I think if a user exists on both the defeated and conquering key, their looting should be disabled.
A problem with the 15-minute holding time would be that an enterprising person(s) could take the station when activity is low with only themselves on the key.
It won't be a problem when the flood gates are opened!
Make the active in-sector requirement date back to the station's ownership.
Seems fair... would affect a lot more people potentially.
Good point. I think if a user exists on both the defeated and conquering key, their looting should be disabled.
A problem with the 15-minute holding time would be that an enterprising person(s) could take the station when activity is low with only themselves on the key.
It won't be a problem when the flood gates are opened!
Make the active in-sector requirement date back to the station's ownership.
Seems fair... would affect a lot more people potentially.
It won't be a problem when the flood gates are opened!
My impression is that this is sarcasm. That isn't helpful.
My impression is that this is sarcasm. That isn't helpful.
If someone wants to take a station by themselves, why is that a problem?
If someone wants to take a station by themselves, why is that a problem?
I don't have a problem with that. And, if it is an issue, it can be solved by more robust / expanded station defense options and upgrades.
I don't have a problem with that. And, if it is an issue, it can be solved by more robust / expanded station defense options and upgrades.
Death Fluffy said:
A problem with the 15-minute holding time would be that an enterprising person(s) could take the station when activity is low with only themselves on the key.
I think a bigger problem with this is that it takes longer than 15 minutes to capture an actively defended station, especially one that has just been taken over.
------------------------------------------------------------------
greenwall said:
Anytime a station is captured and held thereafter for a minimum of 15 minutes...
How is held being defined here? Is a station held even if it's still under contention?
Considering the difficulties and timeframes related to capturing a station, I think a station should not be considered held until things cool-down, This could be equated to all personnel going to secure areas during the conflict and not doing any work.
A timer should probably be used to indicate when a station is no longer under threat, and thus being held. I would recommend starting this timer at 30 minutes after conflict dies down. I would say that conflict has died down if there is no substantial damage in 15 minutes. I use substantial as a vague indicator to make it so that pinging a station doesn't prolong the state of cool-down nor stop or reset the held timer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
greenwall said:
There would be:
-No limit to how many times inventory grabs would happen.
What does this mean?
Does this mean that there could be multiple inventory grabs during the entire time the station is held?
A problem with the 15-minute holding time would be that an enterprising person(s) could take the station when activity is low with only themselves on the key.
I think a bigger problem with this is that it takes longer than 15 minutes to capture an actively defended station, especially one that has just been taken over.
------------------------------------------------------------------
greenwall said:
Anytime a station is captured and held thereafter for a minimum of 15 minutes...
How is held being defined here? Is a station held even if it's still under contention?
Considering the difficulties and timeframes related to capturing a station, I think a station should not be considered held until things cool-down, This could be equated to all personnel going to secure areas during the conflict and not doing any work.
A timer should probably be used to indicate when a station is no longer under threat, and thus being held. I would recommend starting this timer at 30 minutes after conflict dies down. I would say that conflict has died down if there is no substantial damage in 15 minutes. I use substantial as a vague indicator to make it so that pinging a station doesn't prolong the state of cool-down nor stop or reset the held timer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
greenwall said:
There would be:
-No limit to how many times inventory grabs would happen.
What does this mean?
Does this mean that there could be multiple inventory grabs during the entire time the station is held?
not all players are allowed to participate in station combat, but we all use the stations. id basically be helpless to defend my own equipment.
a very limited few would benefit from this and the rest of the universe would pay the price.
-1
a very limited few would benefit from this and the rest of the universe would pay the price.
-1
@scotiaknight
I understand your point and agree that this suggestion is 100% about increasing conquerable station combat. But past precedent doesn't preclude future changes.
If you use a station but don't participate in the conflict, then you benefit from someone else's participation or suffer from their failure). Your using the station comes at that cost and anything tied to it.
@draugath...
My idea behind the 15 minutes was make it short enough to incentivize incessant battles but long enough that some effort must be put in by a defense to claim their reward. With larger groups of people, 15 minutes is totally doable for a take. But increasing to 20 or 30 wouldn't be unreasonable. In other words claiming the dock isn't enough, you need to hold the station for at least a short time further. Perhaps the station hold time requirement could be dynamic and adjusted on a weekly basis based on average amount of players active in a conq station battle (i.e. total individual players doing damage in a conq station sector in any 5 minute period).
No limit means if station is never-endingly conquered back and forth (and held sufficiently), participating parties and eligible keyholders continue to win and lose inventory items each time a station is taken (as opposed to, say, putting a limit of times per day that items can be looted from or rewarded to an individual).
I understand your point and agree that this suggestion is 100% about increasing conquerable station combat. But past precedent doesn't preclude future changes.
If you use a station but don't participate in the conflict, then you benefit from someone else's participation or suffer from their failure). Your using the station comes at that cost and anything tied to it.
@draugath...
My idea behind the 15 minutes was make it short enough to incentivize incessant battles but long enough that some effort must be put in by a defense to claim their reward. With larger groups of people, 15 minutes is totally doable for a take. But increasing to 20 or 30 wouldn't be unreasonable. In other words claiming the dock isn't enough, you need to hold the station for at least a short time further. Perhaps the station hold time requirement could be dynamic and adjusted on a weekly basis based on average amount of players active in a conq station battle (i.e. total individual players doing damage in a conq station sector in any 5 minute period).
No limit means if station is never-endingly conquered back and forth (and held sufficiently), participating parties and eligible keyholders continue to win and lose inventory items each time a station is taken (as opposed to, say, putting a limit of times per day that items can be looted from or rewarded to an individual).
@greenwall
I understand your point and agree that this suggestion is 100% about increasing conquerable station combat. But past precedent doesn't preclude future changes.
station attacks happen on the daily if not the weekly. Loot should not be a incentive to go attack a station. At the very basics of VO is a rpg(role playing game) if you want to role play the go hit a station loot should not be a incentive to go hit a station.
Overall -1 to this post leave stations as they are, Especially when it comes to inventories in stations.
I understand your point and agree that this suggestion is 100% about increasing conquerable station combat. But past precedent doesn't preclude future changes.
station attacks happen on the daily if not the weekly. Loot should not be a incentive to go attack a station. At the very basics of VO is a rpg(role playing game) if you want to role play the go hit a station loot should not be a incentive to go hit a station.
Overall -1 to this post leave stations as they are, Especially when it comes to inventories in stations.
Loot should not be a incentive to go attack a station.
Why not? It's an incentive for attacking players. The existence of "role playing" is not a reason to avoid game changes.
leave stations as they are, Especially when it comes to inventories in stations.
That is not on the table. Station mechanics will eventually be changing. Not necessarily to align with this specific thread, or any existing thread; but that's why there is value in engaging in discussion, to help provide input on how things may change.
Why not? It's an incentive for attacking players. The existence of "role playing" is not a reason to avoid game changes.
leave stations as they are, Especially when it comes to inventories in stations.
That is not on the table. Station mechanics will eventually be changing. Not necessarily to align with this specific thread, or any existing thread; but that's why there is value in engaging in discussion, to help provide input on how things may change.
Good idea
In the same way that by entering grey space you are putting your person at risk, anything you store in a conquerable station should also be at risk. This shouldn't be contraversial.
I do however believe it shouldn't be an instant loot pinata and should require additional effort to decrypt security within the station before you can access the contents. Hold it for 24 hours, anything possessed by unaffiliated pilots should go to the keyholder.
I do however believe it shouldn't be an instant loot pinata and should require additional effort to decrypt security within the station before you can access the contents. Hold it for 24 hours, anything possessed by unaffiliated pilots should go to the keyholder.
24 hours is far too long for a holding period. However, 15 minutes after officially taking control of a station is far too short. I've been apart of station conflicts that have lasted hours with the attackers making no headway. This is why I recommend not having the held timer start until the station is no longer under contention. At the very least, it should be a period of hours, instead of minutes.
To do otherwise would unfairly prevent people from being able to have a reasonable chance to keep their goods safe.
In an ideal scenario, there will always be someone available to attack and someone available to defend. My biggest wish is that there be some way to drive the opposition back, even temporarily, but that's going off-topic.
To do otherwise would unfairly prevent people from being able to have a reasonable chance to keep their goods safe.
In an ideal scenario, there will always be someone available to attack and someone available to defend. My biggest wish is that there be some way to drive the opposition back, even temporarily, but that's going off-topic.
A exploit i see coming from this is someone with alts, using seperate keys, taking the station back and forth. Maybe no one can come on when its first attacked, after that the station is a no holds bar bank in my opinion
24 hours is far too long for a holding period.
Why is 24 hours too long for a holding period? I'm not contending your assertion, I'm just asking what your reasoning is?
Is that based on this implementation being theoretically "light" on what it is giving away? (although it could randomly be a high-value component too) That you think the extended time doesn't justify the reward, or some such?
Basically, part of my concern has historically been more around giving people enough time to reasonably react and create contention; but I do understand that this OP is kind of a different model.. intended to be very fast-paced, with a limited reward value, but a higher probability of loss.
Personally I think it would likely need to be offset by the option of significantly enhanced defenses. Stealing shit from someone who is offline and effectively incapable of responding in the time-requirement should certainly be a non-trivial exercise (and most people realistically can't respond in 15 minutes).
Why is 24 hours too long for a holding period? I'm not contending your assertion, I'm just asking what your reasoning is?
Is that based on this implementation being theoretically "light" on what it is giving away? (although it could randomly be a high-value component too) That you think the extended time doesn't justify the reward, or some such?
Basically, part of my concern has historically been more around giving people enough time to reasonably react and create contention; but I do understand that this OP is kind of a different model.. intended to be very fast-paced, with a limited reward value, but a higher probability of loss.
Personally I think it would likely need to be offset by the option of significantly enhanced defenses. Stealing shit from someone who is offline and effectively incapable of responding in the time-requirement should certainly be a non-trivial exercise (and most people realistically can't respond in 15 minutes).
Why is 24 hours too long for a holding period?
I was trying to view things from the perspective of the original suggestion, which seemed to be promoting a more fast-paced approach to station control. While I strongly feel that 15 minutes is too short for multiple reasons, in a more fast-paced ideal, 24 hours seems to be too long.
After a little reflection, I suppose 24-hours might be a better timeframe, since this could allow a single, involved party a chance to return to the station after whatever their day entails. However, at the same time, I would hope there could be others throughout that 24-hour period that could be incentivized to step up and attempt to take control at other times of the day.
I was trying to view things from the perspective of the original suggestion, which seemed to be promoting a more fast-paced approach to station control. While I strongly feel that 15 minutes is too short for multiple reasons, in a more fast-paced ideal, 24 hours seems to be too long.
After a little reflection, I suppose 24-hours might be a better timeframe, since this could allow a single, involved party a chance to return to the station after whatever their day entails. However, at the same time, I would hope there could be others throughout that 24-hour period that could be incentivized to step up and attempt to take control at other times of the day.