Forums » Suggestions
keep dreaming pyro, seriously adress a post on the vendetta forums?
a) what have you been smoking
b) why arent you sharing
anyhow, stations, i am tenatively FOR player owned stations assuming a system something like the following
1 you are limited to no more than 3 stations per sector.
2 add ons parts are availible, but you can have no more than 8 "modules" on a station.
3 each module can have up to 3 functions. (eg docking bay, ship storage, cargo storage, communications array [ for global chat in the station] manufacturing areas [ for homemade wigits ] shipyards [ depending on amount spent for shipyard level you can build ships at your personal station, standard designs only, all normal restrictions apply, but you get 30% of ship cost stored at station, next time you dock there, the money transfers to your account ] etc etc so on and so forth, the function ideas are basically endless.)
5 with permission from a station owner, you can purchase a module on an existing station. a module on a station you do not own may have limits on the functions it can have, set by the station owner. (perhaps a little checkbox list, modules not owned by me can have the following functions)
6 the owner of each module with a docking bay can choose what factions he wishes to have dock at his bay, set default feelings, etc. once again the station owner might be able to override this on modules he does not own that have been attached to his station. perhaps no module on the station can allow access to people he has on his "criminal" list
I forsee the main station part being EXTREMELY expensive, and each module being about 1/4 the cost of a main segment. a basic station (that counts as module #1 btw) has a docking bay, a cargo storage, and a basic shipyard (can produce a bus) as it's 3 functions.
once you have added a module, you enter into some form of station managing screen and you can then buy "functions" for that module, once again each function has a cost associated with it.
you can upgrade/replace a function that you have added at the expense of the new one - 60% of the cost of the existing function if it is an upgrade, or -20% if it is a replace.
Damage/destroying stations: NO DESTROYING, I could live with damage to any module attached to the main station, if you can do 600,000 hp of damage you can disable a module for 1/2 hour, after which it has 100,000 hp again. it gains an additional 100k HP every 30mins thereafter. the main station module can never be damaged/disabled or destroyed.
Framerate/eye candy: I would reccomend that when the first module is placed(perhaps like ultima online does houses, you buy a deed then locate a suitable piece of ground?) the owner gets to select a building pattern. you could have 6 or 7 options as to how the station would appear. this way as you add each module the it is loaded from a predesigned template, keeping objects that need to be loaded to a minimum. the owner might be able to specify color and accent trim from a color chart to allow for some variety.
a) what have you been smoking
b) why arent you sharing
anyhow, stations, i am tenatively FOR player owned stations assuming a system something like the following
1 you are limited to no more than 3 stations per sector.
2 add ons parts are availible, but you can have no more than 8 "modules" on a station.
3 each module can have up to 3 functions. (eg docking bay, ship storage, cargo storage, communications array [ for global chat in the station] manufacturing areas [ for homemade wigits ] shipyards [ depending on amount spent for shipyard level you can build ships at your personal station, standard designs only, all normal restrictions apply, but you get 30% of ship cost stored at station, next time you dock there, the money transfers to your account ] etc etc so on and so forth, the function ideas are basically endless.)
5 with permission from a station owner, you can purchase a module on an existing station. a module on a station you do not own may have limits on the functions it can have, set by the station owner. (perhaps a little checkbox list, modules not owned by me can have the following functions)
6 the owner of each module with a docking bay can choose what factions he wishes to have dock at his bay, set default feelings, etc. once again the station owner might be able to override this on modules he does not own that have been attached to his station. perhaps no module on the station can allow access to people he has on his "criminal" list
I forsee the main station part being EXTREMELY expensive, and each module being about 1/4 the cost of a main segment. a basic station (that counts as module #1 btw) has a docking bay, a cargo storage, and a basic shipyard (can produce a bus) as it's 3 functions.
once you have added a module, you enter into some form of station managing screen and you can then buy "functions" for that module, once again each function has a cost associated with it.
you can upgrade/replace a function that you have added at the expense of the new one - 60% of the cost of the existing function if it is an upgrade, or -20% if it is a replace.
Damage/destroying stations: NO DESTROYING, I could live with damage to any module attached to the main station, if you can do 600,000 hp of damage you can disable a module for 1/2 hour, after which it has 100,000 hp again. it gains an additional 100k HP every 30mins thereafter. the main station module can never be damaged/disabled or destroyed.
Framerate/eye candy: I would reccomend that when the first module is placed(perhaps like ultima online does houses, you buy a deed then locate a suitable piece of ground?) the owner gets to select a building pattern. you could have 6 or 7 options as to how the station would appear. this way as you add each module the it is loaded from a predesigned template, keeping objects that need to be loaded to a minimum. the owner might be able to specify color and accent trim from a color chart to allow for some variety.
Spellcast: I think destroying PC stations should be implemented, but very hard to do. At the very least a large force should be able to invade and conquer a station. Probably by beating each of the modules inactive and initiating some "infiltration" system like a series of ships that forcibly dock and dispatch units into it to take it over. Perhaps once infiltrated the station can be set to blow up. Or perhaps we would have special station destroying guns that can blow a station up once it's been rendered inactive. But overall, I think Guild conflicts and national wars would continue to have no meaning unless there happens to be some form of "territory" whose control can be exchaged or completely nullified. (Peacably or forcefully).
Pyroman_ace: Boobie.
Pyroman_ace: Boobie.
Aight; to make sure only a group of people could destroy a station:
Even the most simple station should have some form of defence. The cheapest are simple turrets.
The hull of a station automatically regenerates.
The only vessel that can destroy a station is the 'Station Destroyer'. It's basically a modified rag with only a 'Station Destroyer weapon' and lower agility. You need at least 2 of them to do more damage/sec than the station regenerates. They also need an escort to take out the turrets (which would also regenerate, altough slowly).
So the absolute minimum attack force needed to destroy a station should be 3 people. With larger stations, the hull would regenerate so fast; that the fleet that will destroy the station alone could be like 10 ships large. And then you'd still need escort to defend against turrets, defbots and defending players.
If the station's overall HP (of all the components the station is currently made of) is below 5% the station could be taken over by the attackers by using special 'boarding ships'. Which would be like the station destroyer ships, but without any weapons. One ship is needed for every module.
Even the most simple station should have some form of defence. The cheapest are simple turrets.
The hull of a station automatically regenerates.
The only vessel that can destroy a station is the 'Station Destroyer'. It's basically a modified rag with only a 'Station Destroyer weapon' and lower agility. You need at least 2 of them to do more damage/sec than the station regenerates. They also need an escort to take out the turrets (which would also regenerate, altough slowly).
So the absolute minimum attack force needed to destroy a station should be 3 people. With larger stations, the hull would regenerate so fast; that the fleet that will destroy the station alone could be like 10 ships large. And then you'd still need escort to defend against turrets, defbots and defending players.
If the station's overall HP (of all the components the station is currently made of) is below 5% the station could be taken over by the attackers by using special 'boarding ships'. Which would be like the station destroyer ships, but without any weapons. One ship is needed for every module.
I don't like the idea of a special ship to destroy stations, just make the stations have tons of hit points so it takes a fleet to kill it.
Also I cannot say I really like the idea of auto regenerating hull. I think the person that owns that station, or somebody allied with them, should have to log on and hit Repair.
Stations must be destroyable however, otherwise you rule out a huge section of the RPG; mainly true wars.
I don't like the idea of setting limits on stations modules. IMHO you should be able to add whatever you want, if you can afford it. Setting outside limits on things again takes away from the RPG, however it is possible to set limits within the RPG by using money as a restrictor.
Make modules go up in price on a curve. The more you build, the more the next one will cost. Make them extremely expensive and thus limit modules within the RPG itself.
Also I cannot say I really like the idea of auto regenerating hull. I think the person that owns that station, or somebody allied with them, should have to log on and hit Repair.
Stations must be destroyable however, otherwise you rule out a huge section of the RPG; mainly true wars.
I don't like the idea of setting limits on stations modules. IMHO you should be able to add whatever you want, if you can afford it. Setting outside limits on things again takes away from the RPG, however it is possible to set limits within the RPG by using money as a restrictor.
Make modules go up in price on a curve. The more you build, the more the next one will cost. Make them extremely expensive and thus limit modules within the RPG itself.
Stations do need to auto repair whether anyone is on to fix them, but repairs should consume money or resources as they repair themselves. With no money stored for repairs, a station's functions ought to be disabled (other than docking) but the station ought not to be destroyed.
Even small stations should have armor, shields, and other defences roughly equivalent to the largest ships.
Stations should not take lethal damage unless a moderator flags them 'Destroy_OK'. This should not happen unless the builder/owner abandons the game (stops paying the monthly fee), or the builder/owner has been given at least 72 hours notice and a chance to negotiate a time for the attack. This is in the interest of reasonableness, since a person cannot reasonably be expected to be on 24/7. Of course, the owner could always flag the station 'Destroy_OK' if for example its proving to expensive to maintain it and he can't find a buyer.
NPC owned stations should generally never be 'Destroy_OK' unless called for by the Plot Wizard to advance a major plot. However, 'nuetral' NPC owned stations should automatically surrender to a faction that managed to do sufficient damage to them, causing them to become Faction controlled stations until such time as another faction takes them over or they fail to keep sufficient PC presence in the sector to keep it from reverting to nuetrality. Controlling stations would allow a faction to acrue funds through tariffs and docking fees. Of course, with too high of tariffs and fees, commerce would be chased away from the station resulting in a loss of income.
Even small stations should have armor, shields, and other defences roughly equivalent to the largest ships.
Stations should not take lethal damage unless a moderator flags them 'Destroy_OK'. This should not happen unless the builder/owner abandons the game (stops paying the monthly fee), or the builder/owner has been given at least 72 hours notice and a chance to negotiate a time for the attack. This is in the interest of reasonableness, since a person cannot reasonably be expected to be on 24/7. Of course, the owner could always flag the station 'Destroy_OK' if for example its proving to expensive to maintain it and he can't find a buyer.
NPC owned stations should generally never be 'Destroy_OK' unless called for by the Plot Wizard to advance a major plot. However, 'nuetral' NPC owned stations should automatically surrender to a faction that managed to do sufficient damage to them, causing them to become Faction controlled stations until such time as another faction takes them over or they fail to keep sufficient PC presence in the sector to keep it from reverting to nuetrality. Controlling stations would allow a faction to acrue funds through tariffs and docking fees. Of course, with too high of tariffs and fees, commerce would be chased away from the station resulting in a loss of income.
I like Celebrim's ideas about Tariffs, docking fees, and NPC Hostile Takeover stations. However, I don't agree that a station should be destroyable unless the owner himself (whoever purchased the primary module) initiated self-destruct.
The only person able to initiate self-destruct would be the person who bought the primary/main module. After all, with the potentially violatile mix where allies rapidly become enemies, you dont want 9 people holding the codes to S-D your station.
I like the idea that a station becomes inoperative after so much damage though. A feature such as "Pillage Money" or "Pillage Cargo" could be created so that when a station is critically damaged and disabled, it can pay a flat rate to each attacker (say, 25000c) or a certain amount of cargo to each attacker (say, 6 Uber-Electronic Widgets) and then go dormant for the 30 or so minutes until it's hull automatically repairs, -OR- the station owner comes in and pays a fee (say, 10000c) to have the hull restored to 1/2 strength immidately.
I dont think that under any circumstances that a station should be flagged "Destroy_OK" if the owner cannot be reached. The threat of some pilot going on vacation for 2 weeks and returning to find out his station has long since been destroyed and he has no where to go, well thats not very sportsmanlike is it?
The only person able to initiate self-destruct would be the person who bought the primary/main module. After all, with the potentially violatile mix where allies rapidly become enemies, you dont want 9 people holding the codes to S-D your station.
I like the idea that a station becomes inoperative after so much damage though. A feature such as "Pillage Money" or "Pillage Cargo" could be created so that when a station is critically damaged and disabled, it can pay a flat rate to each attacker (say, 25000c) or a certain amount of cargo to each attacker (say, 6 Uber-Electronic Widgets) and then go dormant for the 30 or so minutes until it's hull automatically repairs, -OR- the station owner comes in and pays a fee (say, 10000c) to have the hull restored to 1/2 strength immidately.
I dont think that under any circumstances that a station should be flagged "Destroy_OK" if the owner cannot be reached. The threat of some pilot going on vacation for 2 weeks and returning to find out his station has long since been destroyed and he has no where to go, well thats not very sportsmanlike is it?
<<<I don't like the idea of setting limits on stations modules. IMHO you should be able to add whatever you want, if you can afford it. Setting outside limits on things again takes away from the RPG, however it is possible to set limits within the RPG by using money as a restrictor. >>>
The idea behind limiting the number of modules is to protect the framerate of the sectors. The numbers i have provided are an example, not neccesarily an absolute.
<<Make modules go up in price on a curve. The more you build, the more the next one will cost. Make them extremely expensive and thus limit modules within the RPG itself.>>
possibly, this could work, and the increasing cost could be explained as the necessity of balancing the environmental control systems. Any way to prevent stations from becoming so overly large that they kill framerates works. the problem with using money however is that someone will keep adding modules regardless of the cost just because they can. Also using money as a restriction, you would be unable to attach your module to someone else's station unless you paid the full price. if money is used to balance it, then the "owner" would have to attach all modules, and then rent out the module instead of actually having someone else own it.
The idea behind limiting the number of modules is to protect the framerate of the sectors. The numbers i have provided are an example, not neccesarily an absolute.
<<Make modules go up in price on a curve. The more you build, the more the next one will cost. Make them extremely expensive and thus limit modules within the RPG itself.>>
possibly, this could work, and the increasing cost could be explained as the necessity of balancing the environmental control systems. Any way to prevent stations from becoming so overly large that they kill framerates works. the problem with using money however is that someone will keep adding modules regardless of the cost just because they can. Also using money as a restriction, you would be unable to attach your module to someone else's station unless you paid the full price. if money is used to balance it, then the "owner" would have to attach all modules, and then rent out the module instead of actually having someone else own it.
<<Make modules go up in price on a curve. The more you build, the more the next one will cost. Make them extremely expensive and thus limit modules within the RPG itself.>>
possibly, this could work, and the increasing cost could be explained as the necessity of balancing the environmental control systems. Any way to prevent stations from becoming so overly large that they kill framerates works. the problem with using money however is that someone will keep adding modules regardless of the cost just because they can. Also using money as a restriction, you would be unable to attach your module to someone else's station unless you paid the full price. if money is used to balance it, then the "owner" would have to attach all modules, and then rent out the module instead of actually having someone else own it. >>
This is the very reason I suggested a blue-print based station idea. This way, there is a flat rate per part but the print limits the amount of parts per station. Such as the Big Wheel, it's just one giant piece with no hardpoints for additional modules (exempting DefGuns).
Also, the multi-module Blueprint would allow for players to rent from the Central Module owner to use a module they want to use on that particular design (say, the apartment structure thing (see front of s12 station)) and the owner can accept the fee and build the component.
Also, by allowing only one person to operate the building on the station it prevents to very major problems that tend to arise.
#1) Competition over who owns what (typically when multiple people build pieces or pay with another person to buy one module)
#2) Micromanaging of the structure (this typically occurs when one player builds something that the other doesn't like and #1 results)
#2 (or #3 for those of you counting!): Self-destruction of a station. If someone logs off permanently (eg. leaves Vendetta) and does not wish to sell his installation (or chosses to sell tickets to the implosion of said station) then he or she can!
This would not be permissable if multiple people owned each piece. The owner detonates the central connector and the components would drift away from each other. Thus, by having one owner and a rent based system, the station can be self-destructed virtually at will.
possibly, this could work, and the increasing cost could be explained as the necessity of balancing the environmental control systems. Any way to prevent stations from becoming so overly large that they kill framerates works. the problem with using money however is that someone will keep adding modules regardless of the cost just because they can. Also using money as a restriction, you would be unable to attach your module to someone else's station unless you paid the full price. if money is used to balance it, then the "owner" would have to attach all modules, and then rent out the module instead of actually having someone else own it. >>
This is the very reason I suggested a blue-print based station idea. This way, there is a flat rate per part but the print limits the amount of parts per station. Such as the Big Wheel, it's just one giant piece with no hardpoints for additional modules (exempting DefGuns).
Also, the multi-module Blueprint would allow for players to rent from the Central Module owner to use a module they want to use on that particular design (say, the apartment structure thing (see front of s12 station)) and the owner can accept the fee and build the component.
Also, by allowing only one person to operate the building on the station it prevents to very major problems that tend to arise.
#1) Competition over who owns what (typically when multiple people build pieces or pay with another person to buy one module)
#2) Micromanaging of the structure (this typically occurs when one player builds something that the other doesn't like and #1 results)
#2 (or #3 for those of you counting!): Self-destruction of a station. If someone logs off permanently (eg. leaves Vendetta) and does not wish to sell his installation (or chosses to sell tickets to the implosion of said station) then he or she can!
This would not be permissable if multiple people owned each piece. The owner detonates the central connector and the components would drift away from each other. Thus, by having one owner and a rent based system, the station can be self-destructed virtually at will.
IMHO I don't see the reason why players would have to rent or own parts attached to somebody elses stations. Eventually there is supposed to be even more sectors then the 7k they are trying to release now.
I really don't see why only the person or group that has claim on a sector can build there. People can go to a neighbouring sector to build.
Of course guild owned bases could have more then one person build as it is a guild, however modules of things like cargo space and armor, possibly other things, do not have to be physically represented exactly, its 3am here so I cannot think exactly how you could fit this into the RPG, but I am sure there is a way to do it easily.
As per not being able to destroy stations unless marked as Destroy Ok. -
I really dislike this idea, personally I would like to see anything be possible inside a RPG; however this is not achievable for obvious reasons.
But, I still think having stations be destroyable is needed. For territory wars etc. Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions, would be much better IMO. Making something impossible to destroy will eventually, lead the game into a stand still. Making something extremely difficult to destroy, while in effect doing the same thing as not destroyable at all, still leaves that option open to any that could get a large enough fleet.
On another note, I don't think it should be possible to get more then 2 building permits. So that, Person A could not own 3 stations at the same time.
Possibly have a lvl pre-requeset for the 2nd or some such.
For the RPG aspect of the game, making as many options available to a player as possible is key. Making a station, upgrading it, customizing it, and destroying it, are all paths that could be followed and should be able to be followed.
*if anything does not make sense pls forgive me as its the middle of the night.
I really don't see why only the person or group that has claim on a sector can build there. People can go to a neighbouring sector to build.
Of course guild owned bases could have more then one person build as it is a guild, however modules of things like cargo space and armor, possibly other things, do not have to be physically represented exactly, its 3am here so I cannot think exactly how you could fit this into the RPG, but I am sure there is a way to do it easily.
As per not being able to destroy stations unless marked as Destroy Ok. -
I really dislike this idea, personally I would like to see anything be possible inside a RPG; however this is not achievable for obvious reasons.
But, I still think having stations be destroyable is needed. For territory wars etc. Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions, would be much better IMO. Making something impossible to destroy will eventually, lead the game into a stand still. Making something extremely difficult to destroy, while in effect doing the same thing as not destroyable at all, still leaves that option open to any that could get a large enough fleet.
On another note, I don't think it should be possible to get more then 2 building permits. So that, Person A could not own 3 stations at the same time.
Possibly have a lvl pre-requeset for the 2nd or some such.
For the RPG aspect of the game, making as many options available to a player as possible is key. Making a station, upgrading it, customizing it, and destroying it, are all paths that could be followed and should be able to be followed.
*if anything does not make sense pls forgive me as its the middle of the night.
<<I really don't see why only the person or group that has claim on a sector can build there. People can go to a neighbouring sector to build.>>
They need to stake claim for multiple reasons
1) As you mentioned, territory wars, you can't have them when the territory isn't totally owned by that guild or person.
2) It prevents huge amounts of stations from being constructed in a single sector causing the FPS of the universe to drop considerably.
<<Of course guild owned bases could have more then one person build as it is a guild>>
Not nessicarily, the guild should own and run multiple stations, each guild player should be financed through the guild to build their own station in their own sector thus allowing a network of safehouses for a guild. It's basic "Tactical Arrangment 101".
Also, if you had multiple members building on one station there could, and probably WOULD be disagreement about design and stuff causing rifts in the guild that serve to further destabliize it (oh crap, that was NOT a propaganda paragraph!)
<<But, I still think having stations be destroyable is needed. For territory wars etc. Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions,>>
We've mentioned Auto-repair before and had that idea semi-shotdown. What about as the Defense Package you can purchase with a station, you can also puchase Hull Repair Droids?
HRDs go out onto damaged parts of the hull and repair them as the battle wages. They can't be destroyed because they are INSIDE the station repairing it but they aren't a full repair feature, they only work at a certain rate, determined by the amount owned, say:
1 HRD: 1% repair per 10 seconds
2 HRD: 2% repair per 10 seconds
3 HRD: 3% repair per 10 seconds
so on and so forth but the number of HRD's caps out at 10. Thus the more HRDs, the bigger the attacking fleet needs to be to puncture the line and also, allows the defenders more time to withdraw to defend the base.
They need to stake claim for multiple reasons
1) As you mentioned, territory wars, you can't have them when the territory isn't totally owned by that guild or person.
2) It prevents huge amounts of stations from being constructed in a single sector causing the FPS of the universe to drop considerably.
<<Of course guild owned bases could have more then one person build as it is a guild>>
Not nessicarily, the guild should own and run multiple stations, each guild player should be financed through the guild to build their own station in their own sector thus allowing a network of safehouses for a guild. It's basic "Tactical Arrangment 101".
Also, if you had multiple members building on one station there could, and probably WOULD be disagreement about design and stuff causing rifts in the guild that serve to further destabliize it (oh crap, that was NOT a propaganda paragraph!)
<<But, I still think having stations be destroyable is needed. For territory wars etc. Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions,>>
We've mentioned Auto-repair before and had that idea semi-shotdown. What about as the Defense Package you can purchase with a station, you can also puchase Hull Repair Droids?
HRDs go out onto damaged parts of the hull and repair them as the battle wages. They can't be destroyed because they are INSIDE the station repairing it but they aren't a full repair feature, they only work at a certain rate, determined by the amount owned, say:
1 HRD: 1% repair per 10 seconds
2 HRD: 2% repair per 10 seconds
3 HRD: 3% repair per 10 seconds
so on and so forth but the number of HRD's caps out at 10. Thus the more HRDs, the bigger the attacking fleet needs to be to puncture the line and also, allows the defenders more time to withdraw to defend the base.
arg..heh,
What I said was really not what I meant:/
<<I really don't see why only the person or group that has claim on a sector can build there. People can go to a neighbouring sector to build.>>
That was infact supposed to be in favour of 1 person building per sector.
should be more like this:
I really don't see why there is a problem with only the person or group that has a claim on a sector building there. More then one person building would cause clutter. People can go to neighbouring sectors to build.
And I guess that can hold true for guilds as well, one person can build a station per sector. However I think that anybody from the guild should be able to build in any sector claimed by the guild, so long as there is not a station already.
ie. The person would not have claim to the sector, the guild would; however the person would own the station.
hopefully I made my point make sence, not sure though:/
I am still not sure how claiming sectors could be done effeciantly. Obviously you could not claim the sector if somebody else has a structure in it, since they would have to claim it b4 building. Structures would have to be destroyed to release the claim of one person, so that another could claim.
Maybe for empty(undeveloped) sectors, the first person to build there automatically gets claim on it and will keep the claim as long as this structure exhists.
Another thing- People should be able to buy/sell stations or claims some how. -Tons of ways this could be done.
What I said was really not what I meant:/
<<I really don't see why only the person or group that has claim on a sector can build there. People can go to a neighbouring sector to build.>>
That was infact supposed to be in favour of 1 person building per sector.
should be more like this:
I really don't see why there is a problem with only the person or group that has a claim on a sector building there. More then one person building would cause clutter. People can go to neighbouring sectors to build.
And I guess that can hold true for guilds as well, one person can build a station per sector. However I think that anybody from the guild should be able to build in any sector claimed by the guild, so long as there is not a station already.
ie. The person would not have claim to the sector, the guild would; however the person would own the station.
hopefully I made my point make sence, not sure though:/
I am still not sure how claiming sectors could be done effeciantly. Obviously you could not claim the sector if somebody else has a structure in it, since they would have to claim it b4 building. Structures would have to be destroyed to release the claim of one person, so that another could claim.
Maybe for empty(undeveloped) sectors, the first person to build there automatically gets claim on it and will keep the claim as long as this structure exhists.
Another thing- People should be able to buy/sell stations or claims some how. -Tons of ways this could be done.
ok:
it should really be 1 station owned per person.
<<IMHO I don't see the reason why players would have to rent or own parts attached to somebody elses stations>>
as to someone building off of another persons station, I never said it would be required, only allowed. I kind of envision modules as being cheaper than buying an independent station core, thus allowing a small guild to rent space off of another larger, allied, guild. hell you could even have a guild who's members each purchased a station core and then rented the spaces for a profit.
While i agree that many things need to be possible in an RPG, If there are going to be player owned stations they need to be un-destroyable. no matter how hard it is to destroy a station, if it can be done someone will spend all their time doing it randomly. This causes more problems than the RP benefits from having destroyable stations IMO. I for one would be very very irritated to log on one day and find out that the 100 million credit station i had slaved so hard to get had been destroyed for no reason while i was offline. I would probably cancel my membership right then and there.
as to territory wars and guild conflicts, there may be a compromise. perhaps membership in a guild could be extend to the stations owned by the individuals in the guild. then if your guild ends up in a battle with another guild, then the stations of both guilds would be veunerable, only to members of the opposite guild. Setting up an official state of conflict to where the stations would be veunerable would require a certain number on each side to agree, (or maybe a certain % of guildmembers over a specified level within the guild).
also there could possibly be systems where all stations were destroyable, namely the ones on the borders where the 3 main nations rub against each other. Buying/building a station in those systems would be a known risk that you would be reminded of as you started the creation.
The advantages of being at war with another guild might be something like this: when an enemy station is disabled, docking X number of ships at it captures it. All members of the capturing party must be docked at the same time, and anyone in the disabled station for more than 5 minutes is destroyed (call it internal police action) this way in order to capture a station you have to have a large enough group able to dock fairly close together timewise. Once you dock you cannot repair, rearm etc until the station has been captured. you can of course undock in the same condition you were in when you docked, (minus a 30 second wait time to undock, the station is disabled after all, the ship launching equipment is down and you have to pilot your way out of the bay manually)
any station of course could be sold, there is no problem with that as long as the person buying doesnt violate the more than 1 station rule.
hmm lets see, to avoid overcrowding, you MUST dock with a station you have purchased at least once every 2 weeks to keep it active, if you fail to do so it becomes derelect and hostile to all, (read as destroyable/capturable) If you will be on vacation/away for more than 2 weeks you can designate (in the station menu) someone else, (perhaps several someone elses) to keep the station active for you, then that person must dock at least once every 2 weeks. that person/people cannot designate anyone else if they decide to log off for a month or two, so you'll have to chose wisely.
obviously anyone who's account is disabled/deactivated do to cessation of payments to guildsoftware has their stations put on the disabled/deactive list after two weeks, with the added penalty of having no-one able to refresh it for them if the account that owns the station is overdue.
it should really be 1 station owned per person.
<<IMHO I don't see the reason why players would have to rent or own parts attached to somebody elses stations>>
as to someone building off of another persons station, I never said it would be required, only allowed. I kind of envision modules as being cheaper than buying an independent station core, thus allowing a small guild to rent space off of another larger, allied, guild. hell you could even have a guild who's members each purchased a station core and then rented the spaces for a profit.
While i agree that many things need to be possible in an RPG, If there are going to be player owned stations they need to be un-destroyable. no matter how hard it is to destroy a station, if it can be done someone will spend all their time doing it randomly. This causes more problems than the RP benefits from having destroyable stations IMO. I for one would be very very irritated to log on one day and find out that the 100 million credit station i had slaved so hard to get had been destroyed for no reason while i was offline. I would probably cancel my membership right then and there.
as to territory wars and guild conflicts, there may be a compromise. perhaps membership in a guild could be extend to the stations owned by the individuals in the guild. then if your guild ends up in a battle with another guild, then the stations of both guilds would be veunerable, only to members of the opposite guild. Setting up an official state of conflict to where the stations would be veunerable would require a certain number on each side to agree, (or maybe a certain % of guildmembers over a specified level within the guild).
also there could possibly be systems where all stations were destroyable, namely the ones on the borders where the 3 main nations rub against each other. Buying/building a station in those systems would be a known risk that you would be reminded of as you started the creation.
The advantages of being at war with another guild might be something like this: when an enemy station is disabled, docking X number of ships at it captures it. All members of the capturing party must be docked at the same time, and anyone in the disabled station for more than 5 minutes is destroyed (call it internal police action) this way in order to capture a station you have to have a large enough group able to dock fairly close together timewise. Once you dock you cannot repair, rearm etc until the station has been captured. you can of course undock in the same condition you were in when you docked, (minus a 30 second wait time to undock, the station is disabled after all, the ship launching equipment is down and you have to pilot your way out of the bay manually)
any station of course could be sold, there is no problem with that as long as the person buying doesnt violate the more than 1 station rule.
hmm lets see, to avoid overcrowding, you MUST dock with a station you have purchased at least once every 2 weeks to keep it active, if you fail to do so it becomes derelect and hostile to all, (read as destroyable/capturable) If you will be on vacation/away for more than 2 weeks you can designate (in the station menu) someone else, (perhaps several someone elses) to keep the station active for you, then that person must dock at least once every 2 weeks. that person/people cannot designate anyone else if they decide to log off for a month or two, so you'll have to chose wisely.
obviously anyone who's account is disabled/deactivated do to cessation of payments to guildsoftware has their stations put on the disabled/deactive list after two weeks, with the added penalty of having no-one able to refresh it for them if the account that owns the station is overdue.
Well if you read the part where I said...
<<Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions, would be much better IMO.>>
I will point out the extremely hard to destroy part. Unless you tick off a large number of ppl or a guild, so they want to spend the time and money destroying your station, I doubt that it would be done in one night.
Destroying a station should be very difficult, very expensive, impossible without a frigate class ship. Its not something one person could just decide to do randomly. Possibly 1 person could do it over a number of weeks if they wanted to spend that time destroying one station and the owner never logged on.
Making a game where you can build something that cannot be destroyed, is just wrong. If a player can build it, another player should be able to destroy it.
Having undestroyable player owned stations would set unnecessary restrictions that take away from the game. Making them very hard to destroy with possible consequenses like dropping all relations in a given area, would make it impossible for 1 person to go around destroying stations. Maybe there is an evil guild that would do it, but that could be handled by players/guilds banding together to destroy them instead.
Its like telling a small child he cannot have a balloon because a bully might pop it and he would feel bad.
<<Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions, would be much better IMO.>>
I will point out the extremely hard to destroy part. Unless you tick off a large number of ppl or a guild, so they want to spend the time and money destroying your station, I doubt that it would be done in one night.
Destroying a station should be very difficult, very expensive, impossible without a frigate class ship. Its not something one person could just decide to do randomly. Possibly 1 person could do it over a number of weeks if they wanted to spend that time destroying one station and the owner never logged on.
Making a game where you can build something that cannot be destroyed, is just wrong. If a player can build it, another player should be able to destroy it.
Having undestroyable player owned stations would set unnecessary restrictions that take away from the game. Making them very hard to destroy with possible consequenses like dropping all relations in a given area, would make it impossible for 1 person to go around destroying stations. Maybe there is an evil guild that would do it, but that could be handled by players/guilds banding together to destroy them instead.
Its like telling a small child he cannot have a balloon because a bully might pop it and he would feel bad.
<<<<
Well if you read the part where I said...
<<Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions, would be much better IMO.>>
>>>>
And i will point out the part of my post you apparently didnt read
<<no matter how hard it is to destroy a station, if it can be done someone will spend all their time doing it randomly.>>
I will point out the no matter how hard part.
there is a difference here durgia, the difference is that i know people who play MMORPG's who get together in groups of 20, 30, occasionally even 40 people with the specific intent of causing as much havoc as they can. a group like that COULD go around and destroy stations for fun, and probably would. (btw these are the same people that i have NOT told about vendetta, i might tell them when it becomes pay to play, but the ones i know would make horrible bug testers.)
as to evil guilds and other guilds/players banding together to stop them, good luck. In any MMORPG the majority of the non-hostile players are more interested in keeping their heads down and accomplishing their own goals. In many ways, the griefers/pirates are more sociable and helpful to each other than the "good" players.
You are looking at it from a game environment perspective. What is "wrong" about a game where something can be built but not destroyed. It's not reality, its a game. and just out of curiosity, what restrictions does not being able to destroy a station place on the game that having a destroyable station would remove?
I am looking at it from a customer perspective. Lets say my character has a long term goal to create a trading empire and own a massive trade hub. it takes me 6 months to get to that point where i can afford to buy a station, and i purchase one. Now if i log off, i want to be 100% sure that the station will be there when i get back. period. end of story. no if's ands or buts. Your average customer wont look at the lost station as 100 million credits down the tubes, he's more likely to look at it as 6 months at $XX.99 a month gone.
Well if you read the part where I said...
<<Making them extremely hard to destroy, even making some auto-repair functions, would be much better IMO.>>
>>>>
And i will point out the part of my post you apparently didnt read
<<no matter how hard it is to destroy a station, if it can be done someone will spend all their time doing it randomly.>>
I will point out the no matter how hard part.
there is a difference here durgia, the difference is that i know people who play MMORPG's who get together in groups of 20, 30, occasionally even 40 people with the specific intent of causing as much havoc as they can. a group like that COULD go around and destroy stations for fun, and probably would. (btw these are the same people that i have NOT told about vendetta, i might tell them when it becomes pay to play, but the ones i know would make horrible bug testers.)
as to evil guilds and other guilds/players banding together to stop them, good luck. In any MMORPG the majority of the non-hostile players are more interested in keeping their heads down and accomplishing their own goals. In many ways, the griefers/pirates are more sociable and helpful to each other than the "good" players.
You are looking at it from a game environment perspective. What is "wrong" about a game where something can be built but not destroyed. It's not reality, its a game. and just out of curiosity, what restrictions does not being able to destroy a station place on the game that having a destroyable station would remove?
I am looking at it from a customer perspective. Lets say my character has a long term goal to create a trading empire and own a massive trade hub. it takes me 6 months to get to that point where i can afford to buy a station, and i purchase one. Now if i log off, i want to be 100% sure that the station will be there when i get back. period. end of story. no if's ands or buts. Your average customer wont look at the lost station as 100 million credits down the tubes, he's more likely to look at it as 6 months at $XX.99 a month gone.
Then I suggest putting your station in a remote, unknown sector.
If you get 40 ppl who are want on destruction it will ruin the game no matter what is destroyable. If they cannot destroy stations they will go destroy convoys, or a bunch of guilds. Either way the victims will probably look at leaving. That problem is not specific to the destroyable stations, and would continue without them.
Possibly a protection period could be put in place for x amount of hours until the player has a chance to build decent defenses.
I think it would be better to make some sort of serious player consequences that would stop a huge group from destroying a station, because like I said above; if they cannot destroy the station they will grief players, or cause havoc some other way.
With nondestroyable stations it rather limits territory wars. The only way you could do it would be a system where once all the defence is gone you can dock and claim it. However whats to stop this same group from doing that to a large number of stations. So you log on and find your 100mil credit station was stolen from you in the night.
If you wanted to stop it from happening you would have to limit the game a lot by making stations not able to change hands unless agreed on. That, frankly would suck and be boring. All it would leave is a Trade game with a FPS beside it.
If you get 40 ppl who are want on destruction it will ruin the game no matter what is destroyable. If they cannot destroy stations they will go destroy convoys, or a bunch of guilds. Either way the victims will probably look at leaving. That problem is not specific to the destroyable stations, and would continue without them.
Possibly a protection period could be put in place for x amount of hours until the player has a chance to build decent defenses.
I think it would be better to make some sort of serious player consequences that would stop a huge group from destroying a station, because like I said above; if they cannot destroy the station they will grief players, or cause havoc some other way.
With nondestroyable stations it rather limits territory wars. The only way you could do it would be a system where once all the defence is gone you can dock and claim it. However whats to stop this same group from doing that to a large number of stations. So you log on and find your 100mil credit station was stolen from you in the night.
If you wanted to stop it from happening you would have to limit the game a lot by making stations not able to change hands unless agreed on. That, frankly would suck and be boring. All it would leave is a Trade game with a FPS beside it.
I see what Durgia is saying about "With nondestroyable stations it rather limits territory wars. The only way you could do it would be a system where once all the defence is gone you can dock and claim it. However whats to stop this same group from doing that to a large number of stations. So you log on and find your 100mil credit station was stolen from you in the night."
However, I think that no matter what we do, there is going to be some way of exploiting the station. You can compromise it's defenses and destroy it or capture it with impunity.
The problem is, that as long as there are MMORPGs there are going to be jerks that do that kind of stuff. The best defense is a good offense. Overpower them, prevent them from rising to a threat level, do whatever is nessicary to repress their ability to begin making havoc on the universe.
However, I think that no matter what we do, there is going to be some way of exploiting the station. You can compromise it's defenses and destroy it or capture it with impunity.
The problem is, that as long as there are MMORPGs there are going to be jerks that do that kind of stuff. The best defense is a good offense. Overpower them, prevent them from rising to a threat level, do whatever is nessicary to repress their ability to begin making havoc on the universe.
A long time ago the devs said stations would be capturable. a LONG time ago. I think they also said it wuld be by destroying all the defence as pyro just said.
I like to think that the devs will surpise us with some destroyable stations at some point
I like to think that the devs will surpise us with some destroyable stations at some point