Max Base Size - Idea on how to control it

DarlakSanis

Posts: 1264

Posted:
Posted: -
With player base building being a possibility in the future, and seeing dozens of differents discussions and ideas revolving around this matter, one of the biggest concerns from CIG, as I understand it, is how to limit the size of a player/org base.

CIG wants to keep the game aesthetically appealing, and giving players too much freedom when it comes to base building, might invite some who just don't care about that concept, and create all sorts of hideous constructions.

So I've been thinking on a possible solution for that particular problem, and I think I found one. Maybe it's not the best in terms of immersion or lore integrity, but it could do the job.

Before going into details, I'd like to say that one of the ideas I defend, is that bases (and modules) should be expensive to get and maintain, and use a lot of manpower for it's maintenence as well, proportionally to it's size that is.
The idea I'm about to draft would still use this concept.


It goes like this:
For this to work, modules would need to have sizes, like S1, S2, S3, etc. And the overall size of base (MBS: max base size) would be, pretty much, the sum of it's modules sizes. So to put it simply:
modules: S1 + S1 + S1 = base S3
modules: S2 + S2 = base S4
etc etc etc.

Now, it's probabbly logical to assume that UEE has a record of every planet in the verse, that players can actually visit (claimed and unclaimed). If it doesn't, then some other way of uniquely identify where the base is should be created.
So this idea is that each player/org, would register a base on a given planet. And then that UEE would limit the size of the base on that planet for that player/org.

So, for example, if I, as a single-player, want to build a base on Leir III, the max player base size for that planet would be (let's say) 5. It doesn't matter if I place 5 S1 modules on different points of the planet, or attach them all together... as long as I don't go over the size 5, then he can do whatever he wants with them.

As for orgs, the rules would be a bit different. The max base size would be determined by the size of the org.
A few examples:
- 0 to 10 members -> MBS 20
- 10 to 50 -> MBS 50
- 50 to 200 -> MBS 100
- 200 to 500 -> MBS 150
- 500+ -> 200
This are just for example, as I'm pretty sure they would need to be properly balanced, mainly for hardware, tech and network reasons.


I think this method could work, because the base module manufaturers would be actual companies whithin the UEE juristiction, so the UEE would always know what you have, and the general location of it (the planet that is).
The lore could have a small story, where some anti-UEE members tried to build settlements using these modules, in order to create a new form of government detached from the UEE, but that the UEE quickly "crushed" them and started controlling off-world base building and construction.

The only thing I can't think of, is if you want to destroy or swap a module with another one (or if it gets destroyed), how would we tell that to the UEE, so they can let us buy a new one. In game terms, it's easy, since everything is managed with internal ID's and a basic reference system, but when it comes to immersion, it would look like the UEE magically knew you had a module destroyed, so anyone who likes this general idea, is invited to come up with a nice immersive system.

Cheers
  • Donaghue

    Posts: 1788

    Posted:
    Edited: by Donaghue
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I think there's an easier way to do it, without anyone magically knowing anything.

    All base modules will require generators, and generators have an EM signature. EM masking could exist, but become so prohibitively inefficient or expensive that, beyond a certain point, there's no point even trying to hide your base any more. This would offer some immunity for small-scale operations so they aren't constantly at the mercy of raiders, while very large bases will shine like a beacon and be much easier to spot at great distances. This doesn't preclude the possibility of huge, sprawling settlements, but it does mean they'll have to be defended; the more players you have crowded together in one place protecting a base, the less issue there will be with a few people 'claiming' large areas and crowding out everyone else - they simply won't be able to sustain that lifestyle.
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I think there's an easier way to do it, without anyone magically knowing anything.

    All base modules will require generators, and generators have an EM signature. EM masking could exist, but become so prohibitively inefficient or expensive that, beyond a certain point, there's no point even trying to hide your base any more. This would offer some immunity for small-scale operations so they aren't constantly at the mercy of raiders, while very large bases will shine like a beacon and be much easier to spot at great distances. This doesn't preclude the possibility of huge, sprawling settlements, but it does mean they'll have to be defended; the more players you have crowded together in one place protecting a base, the less issue there will be with a few people 'claiming' large areas and crowding out everyone else - they simply won't be able to sustain that lifestyle.

    I'm not against that.
    In fact I would like to have the freedom to build as much as we want, wherever we want. Keeping in mind all limitations obviously, like the one you described, or the ones I described in my OP, or any others that can suit this scenario.

    But the truth is that CIG is most likely going to limit base building in some way. They hinted that a few times already.
    So, if we're going to get the "bigger evil" then my idea is merely a concept on how CIG could limit base building while keeping some of the immersion and also have a lore entry on why things work this way.

    If for any reason CIG goes, and says: "Hey people, we'll let you do whatever you want, regarding base building", then I'll most likely re-post your idea as possible way to go :D :D :D
    (don't worry, I'll give the credtis to you :D )

    Cheers
  • Donaghue

    Posts: 1788

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I'm not against that.
    In fact I would like to have the freedom to build as much as we want, wherever we want. Keeping in mind all limitations obviously, like the one you described, or the ones I described in my OP, or any others that can suit this scenario.

    But the truth is that CIG is most likely going to limit base building in some way. They hinted that a few times already.
    So, if we're going to get the "bigger evil" then my idea is merely a concept on how CIG could limit base building while keeping some of the immersion and also have a lore entry on why things work this way.

    If for any reason CIG goes, and says: "Hey people, we'll let you do whatever you want, regarding base building", then I'll most likely re-post your idea as possible way to go :D :D :D
    (don't worry, I'll give the credtis to you :D )

    Cheers

    Thanks, but there's no need. Most of my ideas have bounced off so many other posts here that they belong to the community anyway.
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    I'm not against that.
    In fact I would like to have the freedom to build as much as we want, wherever we want. Keeping in mind all limitations obviously, like the one you described, or the ones I described in my OP, or any others that can suit this scenario.

    But the truth is that CIG is most likely going to limit base building in some way. They hinted that a few times already.
    So, if we're going to get the "bigger evil" then my idea is merely a concept on how CIG could limit base building while keeping some of the immersion and also have a lore entry on why things work this way.

    If for any reason CIG goes, and says: "Hey people, we'll let you do whatever you want, regarding base building", then I'll most likely re-post your idea as possible way to go :D :D :D
    (don't worry, I'll give the credtis to you :D )

    Cheers

    Thanks, but there's no need. Most of my ideas have bounced off so many other posts here that they belong to the community anyway.
    I would still reference you :)
    I'm not the idea stealer type :)
  • Magniankh

    Posts: 702

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I think there's an easier way to do it, without anyone magically knowing anything.

    All base modules will require generators, and generators have an EM signature. EM masking could exist, but become so prohibitively inefficient or expensive that, beyond a certain point, there's no point even trying to hide your base any more. This would offer some immunity for small-scale operations so they aren't constantly at the mercy of raiders, while very large bases will shine like a beacon and be much easier to spot at great distances. This doesn't preclude the possibility of huge, sprawling settlements, but it does mean they'll have to be defended; the more players you have crowded together in one place protecting a base, the less issue there will be with a few people 'claiming' large areas and crowding out everyone else - they simply won't be able to sustain that lifestyle.

    I think the balance will be something closer to this, something passive, so to speak. EM signature is one idea, but cost is also another idea. At some point it should become inefficient to build ever-larger bases.

    I think settlements will mostly serve as half-way points between things such as: resources/trading hub, major PvP zone/repair hub, major piracy zone/repair/fencing, etc. They will be built for convenience and ease of access to certain services. Therefore, I think people will want to protect them. One way to make sure that players feel invested in their settlements is if the up-front cost of building one is expensive, perhaps inflated; same with the maintenance cost of paying NPCs, repairing the facility, and keeping certain facilities stocked, such as liquor/food -- probably just rolled into an "Operating Cost" of the settlement in question.

    Another way to deter huge facilities is to make the options for them rather low, without a lot of customization, and without fluff/luxuries such as a spa with hot tubs and fine mixed drinks...kind of joking on that point, but you get the idea.
  • grafton

    Posts: 23789

    Posted:
    Well, to begin, this statement -

    Now, it's probabbly logical to assume that UEE has a record of every planet in the verse, that players can actually visit (claimed and unclaimed).

    is incorrect. We know that there will be un-discovered systems and that it will be up to players to report those to the UEE before the UEE can have any knowledge of them. The planets in such systems will be particularly attractive to a subset of players who wish to control territory without UEE interference, so there will be an incentive NOT to report those planets. Thus,

    If it doesn't, then some other way of uniquely identify where the base is should be created.

    is required.

    As far as having to obtain a "claim" or "deed" from the UEE on known worlds, that makes sense and could certainly be used as a way of limiting the size of player-built bases. For example, the UEE can arbitrarily refuse to sell claims above a certain area to individuals, limiting larger claims to organizations large enough to develop them effectively. They could also refuse to sell contiguous areas to an individual to prevent gaming the system that way. However, groups of individual players could cooperate to buy contiguous claims and build a collective base, but then they are effectively acting as a larger org (without actually joining one), thus there is no violation of game-play. CIG did suggest, early on, that land-deeds might be a thing, but it was an off-the-cuff statement in the process of addressing something entirely else -

    So it's like delivering a really valuable hand written note, but in this case it's digital. So maybe even things like deeds to areas of land, or if someone is the first person to discover an area, you have to get the digitally signed document to the records bureau on Earth, and that's something an information runner would do.

    from: http://www.scqa.info/transcript/?episode=10FTC-009

    Just my .02 cred
    In all the wide 'verse, there's none like me.
    (image courtesy of Aeonmoon)
    Grafton%20Logo%20from%20Aeonmoon_zpscf49
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    @grafton

    Well, another idea, to extend the original one, would be to make each module only attachable to it's owner's other modules, so for example, a single player could not add more modules to an org base, or a friend couldn't add it's own module to mine.
    This could eliminate the possibility of co-joint built bases, even on separate plots.

    But since UEE might not retain data on every planet out there, then this idea could be applied only to UEE territory, so it becomes a way for the UEE to control construction (and even taxing) whithin it's territory.

    But preventing mega constructions on other planets... would still need some way to counter that...

    Cheers
  • grafton

    Posts: 23789

    Posted:
    Well, that would eliminate my suggestion of small groups of players being able to cooperatively build larger bases without having to be members of a large org.

    As far as limiting the size of structures on non-uee-controlled worlds, there could be other NPC factions controlling the territory or at least interested in controlling the territory. Those factions could impose restrictions on size similar to those enforced by the UEE or they could simply attack structures over a certain size, making those impossibly expensive to maintain. CIG have said over and over, NPCs aren't going to stand still for competition. On worlds the UEE controls, they could simply prohibit privately owned structures (where orgs are considered private owners) over a certain size and enforce that restriction strictly.

    Just my .02 cred
    In all the wide 'verse, there's none like me.
    (image courtesy of Aeonmoon)
    Grafton%20Logo%20from%20Aeonmoon_zpscf49
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Well, that would eliminate my suggestion of small groups of players being able to cooperatively build larger bases without having to be members of a large org.

    As far as limiting the size of structures on non-uee-controlled worlds, there could be other NPC factions controlling the territory or at least interested in controlling the territory. Those factions could impose restrictions on size similar to those enforced by the UEE or they could simply attack structures over a certain size, making those impossibly expensive to maintain. CIG have said over and over, NPCs aren't going to stand still for competition. On worlds the UEE controls, they could simply prohibit privately owned structures (where orgs are considered private owners) over a certain size and enforce that restriction strictly.

    Just my .02 cred

    I could see that working... and it would add that "always on alert" gameplay element. I'd definitely like to see that.

    As for co-op build, maybe sharing the base ownership could solve that issue, and validate your idea. Maintaining more or less the same rules applied to orgs.

    This ones:

    - 0 to 10 members -> MBS 20
    - 10 to 50 -> MBS 50
    - 50 to 200 -> MBS 100
    - 200 to 500 -> MBS 150
    - 500+ -> 200

  • grafton

    Posts: 23789

    Posted:
    I suppose you could bring "zoning" into it, too. The system governing body determines that bases built for X purpose (mining station) can be of Y size, while bases built for Z purpose (large ship hangar) can only be of a size (to limit the ability to field large fleets in the area). Alternately, they could limit the number of components of a specific type (say, hangar) you can legally place on a plot of specific size. Violations have repercussions for your org rep and potentially open you up to disciplinary action (violent or economic, depending on the local government).

    Just my .02 cred
    In all the wide 'verse, there's none like me.
    (image courtesy of Aeonmoon)
    Grafton%20Logo%20from%20Aeonmoon_zpscf49
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I guess zoning could work.
    But then again, it would need to have some limitations.
    For example, you could have mining modules, mixed with field medical, living, storage, hangar, power, comms and scanning.
    That's a lot of different types in which, each one could be it's own individual base (composed by several modules).

    In UEE owned land, maybe there could a permit system of sorts to control that, while on "no man's land" you were free to do whatever you wanted, but would be in constant thread of being attacked once your base grows up a certain point.
    Small bases too, but the thread wouldn't probabbly so big, since they could mask their signal a lot better.
  • liquidchaosx

    Posts: 1140

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Many good ideas here. Zoning would work for populated regions. Areas control by local authority could set restrictions. Mostly by applying fines and maybe even removal at the more extreme cases.


    But in areas no one around, no laws. Probably the cost of construction, and upkeep. The upkeep cant be too ridiculous but it should increase the larger the facility.

    Another idea and maybe an important one is: Every part or module used for said base(s) need to be transported there. So the bigger a facility the harder it will be to construct and harder to keep secret as all parts would need transportation. Not to mention ships needed for said transport.

    Generators for power, life support sys, ship hangars, vehicle storage, storage space, etc depending of what type of facility we are trying to build. Aside from the cost per unit, it should need to be transported there physically in game.

  • SerenGraves

    Posts: 1972

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I think there's an easier way to do it, without anyone magically knowing anything.

    All base modules will require generators, and generators have an EM signature. EM masking could exist, but become so prohibitively inefficient or expensive that, beyond a certain point, there's no point even trying to hide your base any more. This would offer some immunity for small-scale operations so they aren't constantly at the mercy of raiders, while very large bases will shine like a beacon and be much easier to spot at great distances. This doesn't preclude the possibility of huge, sprawling settlements, but it does mean they'll have to be defended; the more players you have crowded together in one place protecting a base, the less issue there will be with a few people 'claiming' large areas and crowding out everyone else - they simply won't be able to sustain that lifestyle.

    I like this idea the most.
    S8rtqrM.gifTCefyWeQtBGD6m.png
  • Ryu_Fitzgerald

    Posts: 1036

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]


    As for orgs, the rules would be a bit different. The max base size would be determined by the size of the org.
    A few examples:
    - 0 to 10 members -> MBS 20
    - 10 to 50 -> MBS 50
    - 50 to 200 -> MBS 100
    - 200 to 500 -> MBS 150
    - 500+ -> 200
    This are just for example, as I'm pretty sure they would need to be properly balanced, mainly for hardware, tech and network reasons.


    You can't use player accounts as a limiting factor in bases.

    1) This number system you created allows for a individual to have 20 unit base on top of their 5 unit base just by structuring the organizations they are in in the correct way. If you find a players that care nothing for these bases, you can get yourself even larger bases just for yourself.


    2) Having it limited by game packages is pay to win as your basically saying you can buy more game packages to make more bases.
    [hide]

    same with the maintenance cost of paying NPCs

    Using maintenance cost to balance bases would be a bad idea in a game where you can buy currency.




    Let me ask the question that has not been said. Why do we even need a limiting factor on base size at all? Planets will be huge and have a lot of space. This gives a lot of space for settles that could be used in ways we have not envisioned yet. A settlement built in a way that is visibly obvious will attract unwanted attention and that alone makes a limiting factor that is not biased on how many accounts someone buys. We don't necessarily need EM signature giving away settlements. Let players fly around scouting planets out for other player settlements. If a settlement is really so well hidden that you can't find it, why would you be complaining about how big it gets? If someone builds successful settlement that can hold its own then why shouldn't they be able to build city size settlements?
    Aurora 17

    Sign up with this code to receive 5,000 UEC: STAR-X2PT-QWPD
  • Poised_Gibbon

    Posts: 742

    Posted:
    Posted:
    CIG want to maintain a relatively tight control over the game world and economy, so that is one reason why there will possibly always be limitations on base size.

    The more obvious reason though is technical limitations.

    My gaming group pushed ARK to its limits in terms of base building, it would take minutes for some people to load our base in and the construction mode became so laggy it was practically impossible to build any more.

    Even if all we were given for base building was a cargo container with a bed inside, there'd be players who'd want to cover an entire planet with them, or stack them as high as possible, or spell out a ride word on the surface.

    Also, I think bases should definitely involve UEC maintenance costs, as well as requiring various other kinds of supplies.

    If there is someone who wants to put hundreds of dollars into the game so they can have a decent base without having to put in game time for the maintenance, that is fine by me, less money CIG need from anyone else! As you say, there'll be plenty of space for everyone...
  • Uber-Goober

    Posts: 2863

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I have a Hangar. That where my ships are and where I plan to be if not actually flying one of my ships. Having a base not connected to my expensive ships makes no sense. I wouldn't build a garage miles from my home.
    I don't see spending a lot of time in my Hangar (or base) as being of any value. I'm not going to earn any credits sitting around some base bullshitting. In fact I don't see myself spending much time at all planet side unless it's a planet I'm exploring. Shopping or going to the bar has no appeal to me at all. Other than a occasional sight seeing tour, or obtaining/completing missions, my time planet side will be limited and short.
    The idea of a base that others can destroy is not something I want, or need. Wouldn't a base be persistent? That means defending it 24-7. No thank you to that!
    In life ve get to soon Old't,
    Unt to late schmart.
  • Poised_Gibbon

    Posts: 742

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I have a Hangar. That where my ships are and where I plan to be if not actually flying one of my ships. Having a base not connected to my expensive ships makes no sense. I wouldn't build a garage miles from my home.
    I don't see spending a lot of time in my Hangar (or base) as being of any value. I'm not going to earn any credits sitting around some base bullshitting. In fact I don't see myself spending much time at all planet side unless it's a planet I'm exploring. Shopping or going to the bar has no appeal to me at all. Other than a occasional sight seeing tour, or obtaining/completing missions, my time planet side will be limited and short.
    The idea of a base that others can destroy is not something I want, or need. Wouldn't a base be persistent? That means defending it 24-7. No thank you to that!

    It looks pretty clear that CIG are aiming to provide base building mechanics of some kind eventually. Therefore I think it's reasonable for people to discuss the issue of base size and proliferation, amongst other issues and mechanics around bases.

    Just because there will be a mechanic, doesn't mean you have to use it. :)

    That's like saying, 'I don't ever want to be a miner: get rid of the mining mechanics!'
  • Ryu_Fitzgerald

    Posts: 1036

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]


    Also, I think bases should definitely involve UEC maintenance costs, as well as requiring various other kinds of supplies.

    I want it to be possible to have a secret bunker that you never go into unless there is an emergency. You can't have that if it takes a constant drain of your money/supplies because you would constantly have to travel to that bunker to restock it even though your not using it.
    Aurora 17

    Sign up with this code to receive 5,000 UEC: STAR-X2PT-QWPD
  • Donaghue

    Posts: 1788

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Also, I think bases should definitely involve UEC maintenance costs, as well as requiring various other kinds of supplies.

    If you're talking about rent, I could see this being a thing on a government-regulated planet. But I think there are better ways of doing it than by forcing the player to keep running around the outpost using a repair tool on the walls; well-built structures rarely fall down under their own weight just because you haven't been there for a few hours.
  • Poised_Gibbon

    Posts: 742

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I think there should definitely be a UEC cost in whatever form you like. I didn't state the cost or how often you'd need to be paying. Nor did I suggest you'd have to be running around with a repair tool constantly (however that could certainly be a reality in hazardous environs).

    I also think a base should use resources of some kind to operate. If you never actually use your base then of course you wouldn't need to invest much in terms of restocking anything.

    I'm very wary of giving players to ability to build a 'secret bunker' that requires no maintenance nor supplies, and remains persistent no matter how long it is since you last came near it.

    You can definitely still have an emergency bunker even if it costs to maintain its existence. To use a ship isn't free, so using a base shouldn't be free either.
  • The_Don

    Posts: 1652

    Posted:
    Edited: by The_Don
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    I think there's an easier way to do it, without anyone magically knowing anything.

    All base modules will require generators, and generators have an EM signature. EM masking could exist, but become so prohibitively inefficient or expensive that, beyond a certain point, there's no point even trying to hide your base any more. This would offer some immunity for small-scale operations so they aren't constantly at the mercy of raiders, while very large bases will shine like a beacon and be much easier to spot at great distances. This doesn't preclude the possibility of huge, sprawling settlements, but it does mean they'll have to be defended; the more players you have crowded together in one place protecting a base, the less issue there will be with a few people 'claiming' large areas and crowding out everyone else - they simply won't be able to sustain that lifestyle.

    Add to that the cost to buy the land, actually build the station and keep it alive. Any building looking like a dick at a size that can be spotted from space becomes pretty much a very expensive one week gag. Like in real life, there is little margin for prestige, especially in certain areas.

    Also, even if a large facility could be defended well at odds of 2 attackers per defender, I guess you can't watch every bolt and screw, so the one or other piece that doesn't fall appart would go missing over time...
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone.
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]


    As for orgs, the rules would be a bit different. The max base size would be determined by the size of the org.
    A few examples:
    - 0 to 10 members -> MBS 20
    - 10 to 50 -> MBS 50
    - 50 to 200 -> MBS 100
    - 200 to 500 -> MBS 150
    - 500+ -> 200
    This are just for example, as I'm pretty sure they would need to be properly balanced, mainly for hardware, tech and network reasons.


    You can't use player accounts as a limiting factor in bases.

    1) This number system you created allows for a individual to have 20 unit base on top of their 5 unit base just by structuring the organizations they are in in the correct way. If you find a players that care nothing for these bases, you can get yourself even larger bases just for yourself.


    2) Having it limited by game packages is pay to win as your basically saying you can buy more game packages to make more bases.
    That's true... a person could buy multiple packages, then create an org with each char in it, and then have bigger base... but then what?
    The base would still need to be maintained, protected and repaired when needed.
    I don't see a single-player, being an org himself (due to the multi-package scenario) and still being able to do the job where, around, 3 or 4 people are needed to do it.

    Could he hire NPCs? Definitely, but then, every profit he had, would be sunk into base maintenence.
    And as far as I know, bases will not generate profit, so, the profit from every job, mission or work that that player does,will, mostly, or at least a large chunk, go into paying those NPCs (not to mention the occasional parts for repairs).
    [hide]

    [hide]

    same with the maintenance cost of paying NPCs

    Using maintenance cost to balance bases would be a bad idea in a game where you can buy currency.
    So far, CR's plan is to limit how much UEC you can buy. So unless you are a ground base dedicated player, and decide to leave aside the space part, I don't think that the amount of money you'll buy will let you maintain a very large base.
    And again, missions and jobs's profit, with a single player, would not be enough to maintain a large single-player base (large as to the multi-package org scenario) for very long until things started go wrong.
    If CR decides to change that, then this whole concept would need a serious review.
    [hide]


    Let me ask the question that has not been said. Why do we even need a limiting factor on base size at all? Planets will be huge and have a lot of space. This gives a lot of space for settles that could be used in ways we have not envisioned yet. A settlement built in a way that is visibly obvious will attract unwanted attention and that alone makes a limiting factor that is not biased on how many accounts someone buys. We don't necessarily need EM signature giving away settlements. Let players fly around scouting planets out for other player settlements. If a settlement is really so well hidden that you can't find it, why would you be complaining about how big it gets? If someone builds successful settlement that can hold its own then why shouldn't they be able to build city size settlements?

    Mainly, because of what @Poised_Gibbon said.

    One one hand, I understand CR's concern about players (some at least) having too much free base building freedom, and it's consequences.

    But on the other, I think it would be cool if players could build sort of pseudo settlements (again, not just one, but a large group of players, the bigger the settlement, the more players needed).

    But since that will not be possible, this thread is mainly to present more options on how limiting base building could work.
    @Donaghue presented a good idea, that would be based more on multiple game systems working together, instead of hard-coded limitations (like the MBS concept on the OP). If, in the game, that works better than my idea, then I would have no problem with it.

    Cheers
  • Donaghue

    Posts: 1788

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I think there should definitely be a UEC cost in whatever form you like. I didn't state the cost or how often you'd need to be paying. Nor did I suggest you'd have to be running around with a repair tool constantly (however that could certainly be a reality in hazardous environs).

    I know you didn't. I think it was the Ark reference that triggered that. Rushing around hammering the walls at regular intervals when structure decay was switched on drove me a little nuts. It's okay, I'm getting treatment now.
    [hide]

    I also think a base should use resources of some kind to operate. If you never actually use your base then of course you wouldn't need to invest much in terms of restocking anything.

    Well, yes, but the cost also needs to reflect it's actual value, too. If it serves no particular function but as a place for people to hang out, then why would anyone make use of the feature? They can just chill in their ship that they're already coughing up credits to maintain, since it has a practical value as well.

    I haven't read too much about what you can actually do with bases once they're brought in. Maybe they'll be a way to engage in mining ops or something; those uses imply specialised equipment, and that in turn implies operating costs. But if someone's base is nothing but four walls and a roof with a landing pad nearby, I see no reason to turn it into a money sink even if it's been neglected for a long time. The hazardous environment thing would be an exception, though, I agree.
    [hide]

    I'm very wary of giving players to ability to build a 'secret bunker' that requires no maintenance nor supplies, and remains persistent no matter how long it is since you last came near it.

    You can definitely still have an emergency bunker even if it costs to maintain its existence. To use a ship isn't free, so using a base shouldn't be free either.

    A secret bunker isn't really doing anyone any harm, is it? And if it's not secret, any other player can come along and fill it with holes whenever they want - there's your maintenance cost right there.
  • oOXenosOo

    Posts: 67

    Posted:
    Posted:
    They should limit base building by the cost. I mean, if some players decide to fill one square kilometer with container houses, they can do it. There are still millions of squae kilometers left. But what is the benefit? They would have to run around all day refueling generstors, repairing and cleaning stuff. Using a player base will be way more inefficent than using an uee station, since the station is already there and you dont have to maintain it. So you have to decide carefully what to build where, if you dont want to loose money. Some places will be good for research, so building a laboratory makes sense, but the place might be located in the middle of nowhere, so you dont need cargo depots for trading ore a gas station for other players. You could build it all, but it will just cost you mones.
  • Ryu_Fitzgerald

    Posts: 1036

    Posted:
    Edited: by Ryu_Fitzgerald
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I'm going to tell you now, no individual cap on money you can buy will ever stop someone from buying UEC.
    [hide]


    Well, yes, but the cost also needs to reflect it's actual value, too. If it serves no particular function but as a place for people to hang out, then why would anyone make use of the feature? They can just chill in their ship that they're already coughing up credits to maintain, since it has a practical value as well.

    This is what I was thinking about. If it is nothing more then a place to hang out then it wouldn't make since to have a large cost to maintain. This leaves use to the problem of how to we limit bases when we can't do it by character or organization. A practical solution is one in which we reward the total base density to be low. Otherwise CIG needs to render bases in such a way that high density of bases does not lag anyone and just accept that players will build like that. One possible idea is the higher the density of bases in an area, the more aggressive local animals become and they start attacking your outside walls every now and then. Now you have the option leave this place undefended and repair damage from animals. The problem with doing this is that the larger the density of bases, the more damage animals will do and this scales faster then linearly. This means at some size, you have to hire a NPC to protect the base to be practical. To keep cost reasonable, the NPC could love exploring that planet and considers this job of sitting around this building all day relaxing as a sweet gig. They will ask for less money to defend then hiring a NPC normally. Larger bases will need more NPCs defending it. At some point, it becomes impractical to make bases any larger because animal attacks on your buildings become so common that it is not worth the cost of hiring a NPC. Even if your loaded.
    Aurora 17

    Sign up with this code to receive 5,000 UEC: STAR-X2PT-QWPD
  • Poised_Gibbon

    Posts: 742

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I'm going to tell you now, no individual cap on money you can buy will ever stop someone from buying UEC.

    If someone is willing to spend hundreds or thousands to purchase UEC, only to spend it on putting out supply contracts for their base, hiring some NPCs and a few of the other various costs that might be associated with having a base, then I honestly have zero problem with it.
    [hide]

    This is what I was thinking about. If it is nothing more then a place to hang out then it wouldn't make since to have a large cost to maintain. This leaves use to the problem of how to we limit bases when we can't do it by character or organization. A practical solution is one in which we reward the total base density to be low. Otherwise CIG needs to render bases in such a way that high density of bases does not lag anyone and just accept that players will build like that. One possible idea is the higher the density of bases in an area, the more aggressive local animals become and they start attacking your outside walls every now and then. Now you have the option leave this place undefended and repair damage from animals. The problem with doing this is that the larger the density of bases, the more damage animals will do and this scales faster then linearly. This means at some size, you have to hire a NPC to protect the base to be practical. To keep cost reasonable, the NPC could love exploring that planet and considers this job of sitting around this building all day relaxing as a sweet gig. They will ask for less money to defend then hiring a NPC normally. Larger bases will need more NPCs defending it. At some point, it becomes impractical to make bases any larger because animal attacks on your buildings become so common that it is not worth the cost of hiring a NPC. Even if your loaded.

    Animal attack? That doesn't sound like a particularly good idea as a means to introduce maintenance requirements. Let's put aside the obvious: only certain planets will have wildlife (and which of those will have wildlife that could pose a threat to a base?).

    What you are asking for is essentially the same as what I suggested but with some wildlife that arbitrarily attack outposts based upon their size. It would involve a regular ongoing cost in game time and UEC to maintain and protect your base. You'd have to pay for NPCs, supply them regularly (doing so yourself or paying someone else to) and possibly have to conduct regular repairs too.

    I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking that bases should require maintenance of some kind, but animal attacks aren't the way to go in my opinion.

    For me, I think bases should follow a similar model to how ships work. Keeping a small little base for just yourself or another person will be relatively cheap and cheerful, however will still involve some ongoing cost to you, either in game time or UEC to pay for someone else to take care of the upkeep. Larger 'multi-crew' bases will have expanded possibilities in terms of functionality, but will also require more in terms of upkeep, will likely require NPC crew/staff, and depending on where it is perhaps need constant defence. Org level bases will be like capital ships, they will require significant levels of teamwork and co-operation to supply, crew, protect and operate.
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    I'm going to tell you now, no individual cap on money you can buy will ever stop someone from buying UEC.

    If someone is willing to spend hundreds or thousands to purchase UEC, only to spend it on putting out supply contracts for their base, hiring some NPCs and a few of the other various costs that might be associated with having a base, then I honestly have zero problem with it.
    [hide]

    This is what I was thinking about. If it is nothing more then a place to hang out then it wouldn't make since to have a large cost to maintain. This leaves use to the problem of how to we limit bases when we can't do it by character or organization. A practical solution is one in which we reward the total base density to be low. Otherwise CIG needs to render bases in such a way that high density of bases does not lag anyone and just accept that players will build like that. One possible idea is the higher the density of bases in an area, the more aggressive local animals become and they start attacking your outside walls every now and then. Now you have the option leave this place undefended and repair damage from animals. The problem with doing this is that the larger the density of bases, the more damage animals will do and this scales faster then linearly. This means at some size, you have to hire a NPC to protect the base to be practical. To keep cost reasonable, the NPC could love exploring that planet and considers this job of sitting around this building all day relaxing as a sweet gig. They will ask for less money to defend then hiring a NPC normally. Larger bases will need more NPCs defending it. At some point, it becomes impractical to make bases any larger because animal attacks on your buildings become so common that it is not worth the cost of hiring a NPC. Even if your loaded.

    Animal attack? That doesn't sound like a particularly good idea as a means to introduce maintenance requirements. Let's put aside the obvious: only certain planets will have wildlife (and which of those will have wildlife that could pose a threat to a base?).

    What you are asking for is essentially the same as what I suggested but with some wildlife that arbitrarily attack outposts based upon their size. It would involve a regular ongoing cost in game time and UEC to maintain and protect your base. You'd have to pay for NPCs, supply them regularly (doing so yourself or paying someone else to) and possibly have to conduct regular repairs too.

    I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking that bases should require maintenance of some kind, but animal attacks aren't the way to go in my opinion.

    For me, I think bases should follow a similar model to how ships work. Keeping a small little base for just yourself or another person will be relatively cheap and cheerful, however will still involve some ongoing cost to you, either in game time or UEC to pay for someone else to take care of the upkeep. Larger 'multi-crew' bases will have expanded possibilities in terms of functionality, but will also require more in terms of upkeep, will likely require NPC crew/staff, and depending on where it is perhaps need constant defence. Org level bases will be like capital ships, they will require significant levels of teamwork and co-operation to supply, crew, protect and operate.
    There's a simple thing that could be turned into a base related mechanic, that is already planned for ships...

    Stealing and claiming bases.

    I agree with you when it comes to maintenence and upkeep, but honestly, how much timely maintenence would a small structure need?
    So I say that bases should be allowed to be stolen or claimed, and obviously, attacked and robbed.

    If this mechanic is in place, then having 24 hour watch on your base would be a requirement.
    This would mean 1 of 2 two things (or both)
    - Hiring NPCs for security
    - Auto defences (which consume constant energy, which in turn you have to re-supply power/fuel regularly).
    (I'm just assuming these options will be available)

    Another way to go, for orgs, is having players tend to security themselves, but honestly, who's the guy that spends 50$ on a space game, just to babysit a base?
    There might be a few out there that would like this task, but the amount is probabbly so small, that the community would enraged if CIG don't give us the tools defend our bases while we are off.

    All sorts of already planned mechanics could actually add to this one, like hacking, hull breach, security permissions, stealth, etc etc

    This mechanic, plus a well balanced maintenence one would make base building not just a superfulous thing, but instead a rather well planned project for anyone.

    Cheers
  • Donaghue

    Posts: 1788

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Animal attack? That doesn't sound like a particularly good idea as a means to introduce maintenance requirements. Let's put aside the obvious: only certain planets will have wildlife (and which of those will have wildlife that could pose a threat to a base?).

    This is a good point. Players looking to avoid maintenance upkeep via savage bunny attack will gravitate to worlds without hostile lifeforms, making overcrowding potentially a problem all over again.
  • Poised_Gibbon

    Posts: 742

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    I'm going to tell you now, no individual cap on money you can buy will ever stop someone from buying UEC.

    If someone is willing to spend hundreds or thousands to purchase UEC, only to spend it on putting out supply contracts for their base, hiring some NPCs and a few of the other various costs that might be associated with having a base, then I honestly have zero problem with it.
    [hide]

    This is what I was thinking about. If it is nothing more then a place to hang out then it wouldn't make since to have a large cost to maintain. This leaves use to the problem of how to we limit bases when we can't do it by character or organization. A practical solution is one in which we reward the total base density to be low. Otherwise CIG needs to render bases in such a way that high density of bases does not lag anyone and just accept that players will build like that. One possible idea is the higher the density of bases in an area, the more aggressive local animals become and they start attacking your outside walls every now and then. Now you have the option leave this place undefended and repair damage from animals. The problem with doing this is that the larger the density of bases, the more damage animals will do and this scales faster then linearly. This means at some size, you have to hire a NPC to protect the base to be practical. To keep cost reasonable, the NPC could love exploring that planet and considers this job of sitting around this building all day relaxing as a sweet gig. They will ask for less money to defend then hiring a NPC normally. Larger bases will need more NPCs defending it. At some point, it becomes impractical to make bases any larger because animal attacks on your buildings become so common that it is not worth the cost of hiring a NPC. Even if your loaded.

    Animal attack? That doesn't sound like a particularly good idea as a means to introduce maintenance requirements. Let's put aside the obvious: only certain planets will have wildlife (and which of those will have wildlife that could pose a threat to a base?).

    What you are asking for is essentially the same as what I suggested but with some wildlife that arbitrarily attack outposts based upon their size. It would involve a regular ongoing cost in game time and UEC to maintain and protect your base. You'd have to pay for NPCs, supply them regularly (doing so yourself or paying someone else to) and possibly have to conduct regular repairs too.

    I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking that bases should require maintenance of some kind, but animal attacks aren't the way to go in my opinion.

    For me, I think bases should follow a similar model to how ships work. Keeping a small little base for just yourself or another person will be relatively cheap and cheerful, however will still involve some ongoing cost to you, either in game time or UEC to pay for someone else to take care of the upkeep. Larger 'multi-crew' bases will have expanded possibilities in terms of functionality, but will also require more in terms of upkeep, will likely require NPC crew/staff, and depending on where it is perhaps need constant defence. Org level bases will be like capital ships, they will require significant levels of teamwork and co-operation to supply, crew, protect and operate.
    There's a simple thing that could be turned into a base related mechanic, that is already planned for ships...

    Stealing and claiming bases.

    I agree with you when it comes to maintenence and upkeep, but honestly, how much timely maintenence would a small structure need?
    So I say that bases should be allowed to be stolen or claimed, and obviously, attacked and robbed.

    If this mechanic is in place, then having 24 hour watch on your base would be a requirement.
    This would mean 1 of 2 two things (or both)
    - Hiring NPCs for security
    - Auto defences (which consume constant energy, which in turn you have to re-supply power/fuel regularly).
    (I'm just assuming these options will be available)

    Another way to go, for orgs, is having players tend to security themselves, but honestly, who's the guy that spends 50$ on a space game, just to babysit a base?
    There might be a few out there that would like this task, but the amount is probabbly so small, that the community would enraged if CIG don't give us the tools defend our bases while we are off.

    All sorts of already planned mechanics could actually add to this one, like hacking, hull breach, security permissions, stealth, etc etc

    This mechanic, plus a well balanced maintenence one would make base building not just a superfulous thing, but instead a rather well planned project for anyone.

    Cheers
    I am assuming that it will be possible to invade and steal from all bases, anywhere. If people want something safe, for no other reason but to hang out or put some flair in, then they should buy another hangar, or an apartment (pretty sure apartments are a planned thing, right?).

    I definitely expect there to be defences for players to implement, we've seen some early WiP turrets and the like already. The fact that bases will be NPC first will allow CIG to introduce NPC run base defences and learn from that, so as to tweak and tune them to be actually viable defensive solutions by the time player bases come along (while not being too OP).

    I can definitely imagine it being a viable tactic to hire NPCs on various kinds of base security roles beyond simply manning turrets. Ground security is obvious, but perhaps also to pilot some air power in the event of an enemy being detected.

    I completely agree that this would naturally involve addition supply and maintenance costs, so if you chose to set up a base in a more valuable or risky area, you'd probably have to invest more in trying to keep your base secure. I also agree that bases shouldn't be about just combat power, and other game play mechanics could and should feature in some fashion when it comes to trying to attack or defend your outposts.

    The ability to full on take ownership of a base from another player is an interesting one, that could be tricky to implement well. Gaining access to a base is one thing, but transferring ownership is another. I think that might be something which would have to be more long term game play, maybe taking a day or more. Perhaps you'd have to occupy someone's base for a period of time to run some really long decryption process to gain full access to the systems and transfer ownership or something. You'd need to do this without them stopping/interrupting the process.

    It could then also be possible to upgrade base security systems so that such a decryption process might take more time, so larger org bases might require some significant time, perhaps even days or long, to transfer ownership. That would prevent the mechanic from feeling cheap, where people would log off one night, and log back in the next day to find their entire base had been taken without any means of countering. To take a base from an org would require you truly defeating them and occupying their base, preventing them from recapturing it.
  • DarlakSanis

    Posts: 1264

    Posted:
    Posted:
    @Poised_Gibbon

    Totally agree on this

    Gaining access to a base is one thing, but transferring ownership is another.

    Here's some ideas, just from the top of my head, on how that could work:

    1- Hacking.
    Each individual modules, and even maybe each individual system/station within a module would have to be individually hacked to become "temporarly turned".
    After you've done that to all modules/systems, then you head to the mainframe of the base and, again, hack it.
    This mechanic is a good one, since every individual module/system hacking would have to be done one at a time, or else the mainframe would lock you out (and no more hacking and claiming).
    And you'd have, maybe a count down timer at the mainframe, from the time you do the first hack, and that count down would be incremented after each successful hack.
    Failure on any hack process would temporarly lock the mainframe, or maybe decrease the countdown timer.
    On countdown ended, the mainframe locks (for a time at least).
    The owner, if kills all invaders, and any hacking is in progress, or mainframe locked, only has to "de-lock" with a simple button push (some bio ID system or PIN code could be implemented here), to put things back to normal.
    A successfull all systems/modules hack would let the attacker transfer ownership of the base to him, and take over everything (doors, power plants, turrets... pretty much... he's the owner).

    A secondary system could be implemented, where the original owner would have a lot less trouble to re-transfer the ownership back to him (maybe less time, or just hack the mainframe).


    2- Component swapping.
    Each component that controls each system would be "locked" to the original owner. This happens when you buy them.
    (The hacking talked above serves to clear that ownership ID from a system, from which it cascades down to each individual component).
    So enemies, instead of hacking, they could bring "blank" components that could be swapped by the original ones.
    One way to acquire a "blank" component is to buy a original one (with the buyer's ID) and then hack it in order to clean it's ID (pretty much the same as erasing or changing a stolen ship's ID). The hacking process would need both some time and skill to perform, as well, the hacking techniques could, maybe, be slightly different from each type of different component.
    Then, the enemies only have to swap the old components with the new ones.
    To finish the task, a final (not so hard or tough) hack on the mainframe is needed in order to register the new owner's ID.
    If one (or maybe more, depending on the base's size) component has still the original, or another other than the foe's ID, the mainframe locks down.

    This system requires a lot more preparation, but on the other hand, is way faster and more expensive to do.


    On both ocasions, when the mainframe locks down, the owner is warned of a "Base takeover" (if he or the base is in comms range)
    There should also be a mechanic that allows for the original owner re-take the base, maybe with a simple hack, or a sort "Purge Malware" feature on the mainframe.



    Just some concepts on how ownership could work.
    Needs a few tweaks and brushing the edges... but it could be fun to play either one.

    Cheers
Sign In or Register to comment.