test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Under Siege Proposal (Fleet Starbase and Fleet v. Fleet)

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
EDITED: Friday, 30 April
Under Siege Proposal (Fleet Starbase and Fleet v. Fleet)
A Community Developed Proposal - Player Feedback Needed

( --| poll is up! vote here: http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/A99D97E08C7298F1/ |-- )

full-color PDF coming in May

Preface:
There are a lot of great ideas out there for Fleet-controlled starbases, Open PvP, and Territory Control Content.

However, there's the problem of implementing all of them: some are mutually exclusive, many of them require their own art assets, etc. How are player populations balanced in Open PvP or Territory Control? Can we prevent a gankfest?

What if we combined elements from each to create a new gameplay mode that could potentially enhance PvE and PvP equally?

Introduction:
This proposal is aimed at gathering community feedback and suggestions. Let's improve or replace any of the ideas below for the betterment of the game (and, therefore, our leisure time).

There are really two proposals at work here (though the latter is opt-in but they'd go great together):
  • The first concerns the construction of Fleet-constructed starbases or space stations. These resource-heavy constructs would need both trade goods and anomalous materials in their construction. Without heavy polling on our end, Cryptic is best left to answer what a feasible amount of resources would be required for the construction of a space station.

  • The second concerns sieges of Fleet-constructed starbases. We'll take into account varying population numbers, siege offense/defense, and limits (so players aren't forced to defend their bases all the time).
__________________________________________________

Table of Contents
I. Fleet-controlled Starbase Construction
a. Construction Notes
b. Starbase Facilities
c. Examples of Various Starbases

II. Fleet-controlled Starbase Sieges
a. Siege Rules/Calendar
b. Fleet-controlled Starbase Siege Map
c. Rewards for Sieges (Success & Failure reaps unique rewards)
d. Siege Standings (Leaderboards)

III. Addendum: Effective Level Design
IV. The Benefit to Players/Developers: Why Bother?

__________________________________________________

I. Fleet-controlled Starbase Construction
a. Construction Notes
  • Fleets construct their own starbases
  • One per fleet.
  • Energy/Technology Resource Requirements based on Tier of Starbase; developer arbitrated.
  • Fleets can name system/star base
  • Player Starbases appear on searchable list or calendar (rather than clutter warp-able sector or force players to look at another map)
  • Construction Time equals one week (maps updated to next developed tier during server maintenance).
  • If a fleet desires to not encounter sieges, they can opt-out any time.

b. Starbase Facilities
Mandatory:
  • Command Center
  • Engineering/Power Core
  • Docking Platform (no shuttlecraft - just capital ship access).
  • Brig:
    grants bonus to defending team's base rewards (see II. c. for details)
  • Sick Bay (heals player injuries; adds +30% crew regen for emplacements)
  • Bank
  • Exchange
  • Shuttlebay Mk I (allows for a few shuttles/fighters for defense)
Tier 1 (choose 3; highest member of fleet must be at least Lt. Commander 10)
  • Research Center Mk I
  • Drydock Facility Mk I (allows repairs for free; allows shuttle/fighter crafting)
  • Turret Emplacement Mk I (180 degrees; )
  • Torpedo Battery Mk I (90 degrees)
Note: Turrent Emplacements and Torpedo Batteries deal 25%
Tier 2 (choose 2 - can also be from last list; highest member of fleet must be at least Commander 10)
  • Drydock Facility Mk II
    requisition:
    Commander vessels at 90%
    Lt. Commander Vessels at 75%
    Lieutenant & below at 60%
  • Research Center Mk II (allows for crafting of Mk VI or less)
  • Shuttlebay Mk II (allows more shuttles/fighters for defense)
  • Turret Emplacement Mk II (180 degrees)
  • Torpedo Battery Mk II (90 degrees)
Tier 3 (choose 2 - can also be from previous list; highest member of fleet must be at least Captain 10)
  • Drydock Facility Mk III
    requisition:
    Captain vessels at 90%,
    Commander at 75%
    Lt. Commander & below at 60%
  • Research Center Mk III (allows for crafting of Mk VIII or less)
  • Turret Emplacement Mk III
  • Torpedo Battery Mk III
Tier 4 (choose 3 - can also be from previous list; ; highest member of fleet must be Rear Admiral 10)
  • Drydock Facility Mk IV
    requisition:
    Rear Admiral vessels at 90%,
    Captain at 75%
    Commander & below at 60%
  • Research Center MK IV (allows for crafting of Mk X or less)
  • Turret Emplacement Mk IV
  • Torpedo Battery Mk IV
( - see Fleet Starbase in-game @ ImageShack - )

c. Example Space Stations: __________________________________________________

II. Fleet-controlled Starbase Sieges
a. Siege Rules / Calendar
A single starbase can only be assaulted when it is flagged.

Fleets can flag certain days (and hours) that they're available for siege (this is to prevent fleets from spending all their time defending a station - unless they want to).

Alternatively, fleets leaders can also mark dates/times on a calendar for competing forces to consider.

For example, if most of my fleet can only make it Thursday night - we can open our base up for sieges that night but also search for starbases that are open for siege on the calendar ahead of time[, whether that day or a few days prior.

This gives fleets the tools to planning without necessarily gridlocking their decisions. Fleet Administrators could also contact opposing fleets to arrange times.

b. Fleet-controlled Starbase Siege Map
(instanced maps of 10 v 10 until less than 10 per side, then 5v5, 3v3, 1v1 until evenly matched - calculate average Grade for assaulting fleet)

[needs significantly more debate]
c. Rewards for Sieges:
Player bases are flagged at:
  • Off - No sieges possible, strictly the owning fleet's social hub
  • Normal - sieges possible (no DP)
  • Hard -sieges possible (respawns allowed, injury system; rewards slightly boosted)
  • Elite - sieges possible (no repawns in sieged area until siege is over - can chose to respawn at your last destination at any time but means you'd exit siege-play; rewards greatly boosted)
All participants can earn a base amount skillpoints (for themselves & boffs) and energy credits, in addition to rewards scaled for involvement in the siege (and whether your side won).

Successful team receives "Seized Goods":
  • Top 5% contributors get a better reward
  • Next to top 5% get a slightly better reward
  • Everyone else gets a slight bonuses
Failing team receives "Salvage Goods":
  • Top 5% receive slight reward bonus
  • Everyone else normal skillpoints, energy credits

d. Siege Standings (Leaderboards)
Overall Faction versus Faction Totals (for successful defenses ratio).
Fleets with the most successful defense ratio are calculated on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual basis.
__________________________________________________

III. Addendum: Effective Level Design
[draws on experience designing MP level for FPS games, while balancing for social hub needs]
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    __________________________________________________

    IV. Benefit to Players/Developers:
    By having fleet starbases (and their subsequent siege assaults/defenses), players can be more active (but not too much) during the course of their week. This would foster social and teamgameplay.

    The concept of sieges comes from SWG - which had player City versus City sieges not long after launch. It was a beautiful system - even if it could fall apart at times. Consider this player city vs. city 2.0: directing that experience into something balanced that everyone can enjoy.

    It'd also give everyone (from crafters to PvP to roleplayers) a meeting spot for their fleet. Imagine relaxing with fleet-mates, in-between missions. You could contribute to building sections of the station - working as a team toward a PvE/Secial Goal.

    Then, RED ALERT! A klingon fleet has emerged from Warp. Everyone in the fleet has the option to participate in the station's defense. The fleet would now work on a PvP/Competitive goal - as well as a highlight each week (if the fleet opts into Sieges)

    On the developer-end, there's certainly a content generation hurdle. This is a given.

    However, would this new gameplay aspect drive players to be more active in the game?
    Would it inspire players to return or new ones to join?

    That's above my paygrade - market research is not my forte. However, this system would operate independently of existing PvP and PvE modes. Thanks to a limited scope - it hopefully shouldn't detract from either of those systems in-place right now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    [doubt I'll need it but the community might want some growing space]
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    my view on pvp is normally stemmed from the main pvp games ive played.

    1 being daoc for 5 years +
    2 from warhammre which has slightly different mechanic but very similar to daoc

    In daoc you had a PVP realm that linked all the zones you couldnt break into the pve zones but you could do missions and quests in pvp at a greater reward to yourself but at a risk of being hunted by the enemy.

    Now in each effectivly square i suppose for startrek online it would be sector, you would have a central keep surrounded by 3 towers. now you could seige the keep itself OR take the towers and use them as a defensive post to attack the keep.

    After you attack and take the keep it takes time to upgrade.

    Now in Startrek online what i would think would be better would be having control points within the sector made up of the different planetary systems. Each system would provide a bonus to your side in terms of say increased defensive bonus OR increased damage. If you say take all the keeps it should open up a epic encounter say the enterprise turns up OR the defiant which you can then gain a reward from.

    The other aspect is that in PVP in both warhammer and daoc there was a secondary exp tier that you got from killing the enemy or assisting in defence / offence. In startrek you get the merit points but after a while you will have all the equipment with nothing to spend it on, instead how about having extra bonusses OR extra skill points you can purchase (although not sure about that)

    So in startrek say your realm decides to invade the regulus sector with a push onto SOL they would have to take and hold every planet in the regulus system before they can attack starbase one. now you should provide the player the option to either remain in the pve side OR switch to the PVP side and help defend the regulus system. You could even have objectives when you reach sol like Jupiter shipyards OR utopia planetia.

    For player controlled starbases you need a system of maintenance even if its a comodoty delivery option
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Awarkle wrote: »
    For player controlled starbases you need a system of maintenance even if its a comodoty delivery option

    I understand part of where you're coming from: I'm a former SWG City vs. City player as well as WAR.

    Having a maintenance fee for starbases based on combat might deter players from using it. We saw how divisive the death penalty / difficulty slider was these past few weeks.

    This is why I'd suggested an opt-in, in the form of a fleet assigning their own starbase's difficulty level:
    • Off - No sieges possible
    • Normal - No losses; sieges possible
    • Hard - Some losses from fleet bank, injury possible.
    • Elite - Noticeably more losses from fleet bank, greater injury possible.

    What do you think?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Darren, My main man, again posting in a epic thread with a very talented OP hard at work. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    i dont think you should loose items from fleet banks, it was proven in city of heroes / villains that noone actually wanted their bases destroyed due to the time sink required to build them up. so noone flagged their guilds for pvp. the same would be for a loss of items from banks.

    now your starbase should have two levels to it, 1 the external space combat system where like the starships you place weapons / equipment even maybe bridge officers OR some generic purchasable officers.

    and an internal where you can put in defence or design the layout to your starbase with capturable points.

    if your defending yourstar base you could have both happening at the same time the risk could be if your on the base when its destroyed then it would be the same as being killed. and instead of reapiring in say the system your transported back to sol and you have to pay a deduction to repair your ship your crew and yourself. (it would soak up some of the massive funds floating around-

    a better system would be if your fleet looses a starbase then a lockout from claiming any other starbases for maybe 24 hours.

    also you need a reward for defence and attack both successful and non succesful.

    so say your klingon you attack a starbase but defenders turn up you should gain somthing for attempting the impossible.

    remember people prefer incentives than negatives.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Awarkle wrote: »
    i dont think you should loose items from fleet banks, it was proven in city of heroes / villains that noone actually wanted their bases destroyed due to the time sink required to build them up. so noone flagged their guilds for pvp. the same would be for a loss of items from banks.
    Hmmm... I suppose you're right. Perhaps having the brig add to the successful defense bonus rewards?
    now your starbase should have two levels to it, 1 the external space combat system where like the starships you place weapons / equipment even maybe bridge officers OR some generic purchasable officers.

    and an internal where you can put in defence or design the layout to your starbase with capturable points.
    In order of personal preference:
    1) Player-customized capture point layouts
    2) Pre-generated capture point layouts (assumes prefab interior layouts)
    3) Simple deathmatch

    [Note: added section III. Addendum: Effective Level Design to provide notes/advice on creating ground map layouts, based on both MMO and FPS concerns/conventions]


    expect this to be fleshed out by players.

    I've create multiplayer levels and mods for games as old as Dark Forces to Quake 3 Arena to Unreal Tournament. There's a wealth of information on how to make the map layout both functional (for MMOs) and tactical (as in sound design for combat). Great stuff and I'm sure we can think outside the genre "box."
    if your defending yourstar base you could have both happening at the same time the risk could be if your on the base when its destroyed then it would be the same as being killed. and instead of reapiring in say the system your transported back to sol and you have to pay a deduction to repair your ship your crew and yourself. (it would soak up some of the massive funds floating around-
    Well, as you say, incentivizing sieges is the devil's work: it's tough to balance.

    I purposefully didn't include starbase loss due to the anti-DP concerns on the forum. No need letting this idea get bogged down in committee because of tying the default mode to a DP.
    a better system would be if your fleet looses a starbase then a lockout from claiming any other starbases for maybe 24 hours.
    Well, ideally - no one would lose a starbase. They'd essentially by raiding parties on bases (hopefully, you you can see why I didn't use the word "raid"). :D
    also you need a reward for defence and attack both successful and non succesful.

    so say your klingon you attack a starbase but defenders turn up you should gain somthing for attempting the impossible.
    Rewards could be given to both sides (higher tier increases the rewards - winner gets more, loser gets less). Perhaps even a heal/damage/absorb calculator to determine who contributed the most to the fight, per the PvP scoring changes (not sure if they hit yet).

    [Note: updated II. c. Rewards for Sieges to reflect this]
    remember people prefer incentives than negatives.
    True - I think having the default setting allow for sieges (but no losses) would cover most everyone.

    We'd need to introduce a new Merit system for Sieges - to accommodate leaderboards (and possibly rewards).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Added In-game Mock-up under section I. b.
    ( - see Fleet Starbase Management in-game @ ImageShack - )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Fantastic Idea, I love it! Maybe could use a bit of tweaking, I'll give better feedback later.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I understand part of where you're coming from: I'm a former SWG City vs. City player as well as WAR.

    Having a maintenance fee for starbases based on combat might deter players from using it. We saw how divisive the death penalty / difficulty slider was these past few weeks.

    This is why I'd suggested an opt-in, in the form of a fleet assigning their own starbase's difficulty level:
    • Off - No sieges possible
    • Normal - No losses; sieges possible
    • Hard - Some losses from fleet bank, injury possible.
    • Elite - Noticeably more losses from fleet bank, greater injury possible.

    What do you think?

    Omg I love it... Also alot like the AOC guild cites.. Maybe add some mining ships to get the stuff we need to build with.. We have Sci and Eng officers why not use them..
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    suprisingly i like it, but for this to work we would need to have starbasese first which won't come till atleast season 3. (last i heard)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    alyvian wrote: »
    suprisingly i like it, but for this to work we would need to have starbasese first which won't come till atleast season 3. (last i heard)
    Very true - which is why sieges are predicated on creating starbases. I admit there's a content hump but this could bring many PvE, PvE, Crafting options to the masses. :)

    I'm working on more in-game mock-ups, if you have seen the one I posted.
    Arrawn wrote:
    Omg I love it... Also alot like the AOC guild cites.. Maybe add some mining ships to get the stuff we need to build with.. We have Sci and Eng officers why not use them..

    The "how" of crafting is vague right now but I like the mining idea. It's not like they used giant replicators to build space stations. :) That said, is there a way to use existing resources (like commodities) until a robust system of building stations could be developed?
    • How can it be quickly and inexpensively developed?

    If research centers had some functionality other than Memory Alpha, I'd be stoked.

    However, that's a fully-fleshed out crafting systems away and I have no idea how the Memory Alpha update is going to effect gameplay (it's not on Tribble yet). The "what" of crafting could do with some overhaul, too.

    Also:
    • How can more functionality be added without needing much content developed?
    • What be borrowed from existing content to get a foundation for something great developed faster- then expand from there?

    Note: rewards have been flagged differently than discussed before (here's an idea that would mean no item loss but incentivize Sieges - based on feedback from old CoX players who saw how bases worked -and didn't work- in that game):

    c. Rewards for Sieges:
    Player bases are flagged at:
    • Off - No sieges possible, strictly the owning fleet's social hub
    • Normal - sieges possible (no injury system; timer-based; base rewards)
    • Hard -sieges possible (respawns allowed, injury system; rewards slightly boosted)
    • Elite - sieges possible (no repawns in sieged area until siege is over - can chose to respawn at your last destination at any time but means you'd exit siege-play; rewards greatly boosted)
    All participants can earn a base amount skillpoints (for themselves & boffs) and energy credits, in addition to rewards scaled for involvement in the siege (and whether your side won).

    Successful team receives "Seized Goods":
    • Top 5% contributors get a better reward
    • Next to top 5% get a slightly better reward
    • Everyone else gets a slight bonuses
    Failing team receives "Salvage Goods":
    • Top 5% receive slight reward bonus
    • Everyone else normal skillpoints, energy credits
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Good news: the OP hit character cap!

    I've moved section IV. Benefit to Players / Developers to the second post of the thread.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Another great thread as always. I'm not as big a supporter of this idea as I once was, but good work none-the-less.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Another great thread as always. I'm not as big a supporter of this idea as I once was, but good work none-the-less.
    What changed your mind, in regards to previous ideas? Anything we can address now?

    We're in a discussion - sometimes a player needs to rain on our parade to keep us cemented in reality. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    What changed your mind, in regards to previous ideas? Anything we can address now?

    We're in a discussion - sometimes a player needs to rain on our parade to keep us cemented in reality. :)

    No, it's just that I used to be a huge supporter of fleet owned starbases, but now that I'm no longer in a fleet, it doesn't really seem right to give Starbases to one group while excluding the rest. I prefer Alecto's idea to add player owned starbases in for all players in the higher ranks (rear Admiral Upper, Vice Admiral, Admiral, Fleet Admiral), in place of new ship classes, though I think at least one more Tier of ships should be added first.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    No, it's just that I used to be a huge supporter of fleet owned starbases, but now that I'm no longer in a fleet, it doesn't really seem right to give Starbases to one group while excluding the rest. I prefer Alecto's idea to add player owned starbases in for all players in the higher ranks (rear Admiral Upper, Vice Admiral, Admiral, Fleet Admiral), in place of new ship classes, though I think at least one more Tier of ships should be added first.
    Ah, I see.

    I saw Alecto's and was dissatisfied with the individual run stations.

    We'll have to disagree - not because of each thread's merits but due to our own personal tastes. :D

    Hopefully, this could foster social gameplay and start consolidating fleets (further driving the social factor up). I was, at least partially, inspired by dstahl's comments in the Explore the System thread.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I was considering a single issue that has really plagued games such as Warhammer and Daoc with regards to ownership of keeps (or stations) that only a single guild can claim the keep and that there is normally a mechanic such as cost to run that keep OR some other cost system in place.

    This effectivly eliminates soloers and small guilds even 1 man guilds from claiming keeps due to the lack of resources.

    Well as startrek is based around we are all part of a single entity such as starfleet command. Or the Klingon Defence Force. how about we get rid of fleet ownership and instead change the mechanic to player linking.

    Me as a single player can link to any starbase in the game and by doing so i can gain the benefits from that starbase such as say reduced costs on repairs OR some other benfit. Likewise if my station is attacked i am sent a distress signal and i can go and defend.

    then you have the flete made up of basically lots of solo people, they can either choose to link to a single station OR each member can link to separate stations, the fleet would get a broadcast from any station any member is linked to and thus can mobilise to defend it.

    However the benefit for claiming a single station is much greater than spreading it out over lots of stations. For instance say i defend my linked station and others come to help defend it I may gain an added bonus for defence while everyone else just gets a normal defence bonus. Likewise if a fleet owns lots of stations they gain a smaller reward than owning just a single station.

    I dont think a station should be defendable in terms of "taking control" i think they should be static BUT you can gain bonuses or even gain a temporary power to order the starbase to fire on your target OR to extend its shields around you OR to even dock inside the station and take the fight to the corridors to defend agains bording actions

    That was my idea dont do ownership do linking.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Awarkle wrote: »
    I was considering a single issue that has really plagued games such as Warhammer and Daoc with regards to ownership of keeps (or stations) that only a single guild can claim the keep and that there is normally a mechanic such as cost to run that keep OR some other cost system in place.

    This effectivly eliminates soloers and small guilds even 1 man guilds from claiming keeps due to the lack of resources.

    Well as startrek is based around we are all part of a single entity such as starfleet command. Or the Klingon Defence Force. how about we get rid of fleet ownership and instead change the mechanic to player linking.

    Me as a single player can link to any starbase in the game and by doing so i can gain the benefits from that starbase such as say reduced costs on repairs OR some other benfit. Likewise if my station is attacked i am sent a distress signal and i can go and defend.

    then you have the flete made up of basically lots of solo people, they can either choose to link to a single station OR each member can link to separate stations, the fleet would get a broadcast from any station any member is linked to and thus can mobilise to defend it.

    However the benefit for claiming a single station is much greater than spreading it out over lots of stations. For instance say i defend my linked station and others come to help defend it I may gain an added bonus for defence while everyone else just gets a normal defence bonus. Likewise if a fleet owns lots of stations they gain a smaller reward than owning just a single station.

    I dont think a station should be defendable in terms of "taking control" i think they should be static BUT you can gain bonuses or even gain a temporary power to order the starbase to fire on your target OR to extend its shields around you OR to even dock inside the station and take the fight to the corridors to defend agains bording actions

    That was my idea dont do ownership do linking.

    Some good ideas and criticism in your post. Hopefully, the developers wouldn't insist on an "upkeep" fee.

    However, these are my follow-up questions:
    1. Would there be linking caps?
    2. If not, wouldn't most players link to the most developed space station?
    3. If 2 holds true, would that reduce the number of stations defendable?
    4. Is "linking" a fleet in everything but name?


    I mostly focused on communal ownership of stations due to develop feedback on past ideas I helped compile. If we can address developer considerations, we stand a better chance of getting something created. :)

    To quote dstahl:
    dstahl wrote: »
    A concern we constantly have to deal with in MMO design is "how does this work on a team?" or "Is this something a team would want to do together?" or "how does this scale for a team?".

    If anything, I'd think we want to lean more towards social game mechanics and away from single player activities.

    Looking back on your own ideas - how would you tackle system exploration on a team? Is it compelling to do on a team? What changes would you make to make it more team friendly?
    dstahl wrote: »
    One of the goals in MMO design is creating features that foster social gameplay because playing with others is a keystone in a multiplayer game.

    The more features you implement that focus on solo gameplay - the further away you get from your goal.

    Ask yourself - do you want STO to become a single player game or should it remain multiplayer focused?

    Its an interesting question. You have to keep in mind that as a business model - MMOs are based on multiplayer interaction that sustain subscriptions.

    How would you approach your design given that feedback?
    dstahl wrote: »
    To clear up some comments I read - the intention has been to open up dialog about the difference between single and group play and based on comments and how they impact game design.

    Comments in this thread are very interesting and something we absolutely consider. Several others in other threads too my comments out of context to mean "we don't want solo gameplay". If anything I was calling out the fine balance and thoughts behind decisions for one type of game play or another.

    My thoughts to the OP have always been this single question - "How does this work if I'm on a team?" Which is something that we always have to ask ourselves in an MMO. (ie does the mission design break if I happen to be teamed at the time).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    i thought of linking more akin to "choosing a home base". you link to one starbase and maybe allow a cool down between linking to stop you from base hopping.

    as for maintenance cost, i think a game like STo needs a money sink currently inflation is goign through the roof with nothing to spend credits on you got things on the exchange going for ridiculous sums just because its easy to aquire lots of wealth.

    i wouldnt have developed bases in terms of "we built a doomsday device for our base but yours doenst have one".

    instead bases would be static and upgraded depending on time spent holding the starbase.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Awarkle wrote: »
    i thought of linking more akin to "choosing a home base". you link to one starbase and maybe allow a cool down between linking to stop you from base hopping.

    as for maintenance cost, i think a game like STo needs a money sink currently inflation is goign through the roof with nothing to spend credits on you got things on the exchange going for ridiculous sums just because its easy to aquire lots of wealth.

    i wouldnt have developed bases in terms of "we built a doomsday device for our base but yours doenst have one".

    instead bases would be static and upgraded depending on time spent holding the starbase.
    I agree that inflation is outrageous on the exchange (though the fabled improvements should help alleviate that).

    However, would the ideas being retooled in the OP be a good money-sink or a bad money-sink?

    That is to say, is there enough gameplay content included in the OP to justify players dumping many assets and resources there?


    I'd definitely like to see ways to improve the game aspect of OP (and then we'd have stronger cases for bartering for a money-sink to offset inflation).

    As for soloplayers, it'd be great if they could "warp-in" to conflicts and add them to their Siege Calendar - allowing smaller Klingon fleets to add enough to make for massive Siege conflicts (say 10 instances of 10v10 combat - essentially 100 people sieges). In addition to rewards, solo players might get limited access to the starbase's facilities (say 3 days access to their research/requisition bargains).

    Any ideas?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Ladies and Gents,

    The poll is up!

    Vote below and make your opinion heard. I've switched back to PollDaddy's hosting - should save all the headaches of previous polls.


    ( --| http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/A99D97E08C7298F1/ |-- )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    It's always good to see another Starbase thread! Keep posting/bumping ideas you like so they stay in the forefront of the developers minds!
    II. Fleet-controlled Starbase Sieges
    a. Siege Rules / Calendar
    A single starbase can only be assaulted semi-weekly (no more than twice a week; a fleet can, however, attack as many different fleet bases as they please). This is to protect factions with lower population numbers and ensure a fair (or worthy) fight.

    Hate this idea :eek:, Why: A) not everyone wants starbases for PvE/PvP (they want it for crafting/social/storage), B) its difficult to schedule anything beyond "now" with a large group, C) The solution needs to account for people dropping/adding, D) some starbases will want to defend 4 times in one day, but not other days of the week.

    One of the other starbase threads concluded there's no need for it since a PvP queuing mechanism already exists. When the defending starbase fleet is assembled and ready, they can just add their starbase to the PvP queue. The queue should have some "military style intelligence report" about the starbase for the attackers, and limit the number of attackers to within some percentage of the number of defenders.

    The siege map is a searchable gridmap featuring occupied spaces (i.e. a fleet starbase can occupy one grid coordinate - allows for fleets to occupy array spaces).
    Too many fleets will want starbases. The other thread concluded that the only reasonable approach to prevent STO space from becoming infested with starbases was to have them in their own instances only accessible by transwarp. There are also advantages in that each fleet can have a different style of starbase, in a different type of system. This would break up the monotony of "doing the same thing over and over". Assuming starbases are built lego-style, if would also present attackers where no two ground scenarios were the same (the other thread assumes starbase PvP/PvE starts with a space assault against the attack and ends if the attackers can beam-aboard (ground assault) and hold the flag).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    The "how" of crafting is vague right now but I like the mining idea. It's not like they used giant replicators to build space stations. :) That said, is there a way to use existing resources (like commodities) until a robust system of building stations could be developed?

    I'd suggest starting with some of the ideas from the other Starbase thread which allows someone to start a starbase simply and cheaply, but has an exponential factor to build. Essentially you start by mining, buy a seed module, do a "trade" mission to escort it [escort mission], "build" mission while it uses your raw components to build the initial hub). The other thread suggests all starbase components are crafted, but that might be draconian.

    Here's the post from over there on Crafting/Trading:
    Starbase Crafting
    Crafting can be tied to Starbases and brings many elements which expand the game. In this idea, players never stand around at crafting stations. Instead, they explore strange new worlds, perform scientific investigations, and pursue their Federation/KDF duties in a time of war. That is, Crafting in Canon.
    • Mining - Needed to get raw ore and rarer non-replicable materials. You get escort missions where you guard npc miners and npc haulers. Your PvE or PvP opponents try to steal the ore/destroy the miners. What your haulers make it out of the instance with is divided up between your team mates and deposited in your vault. The more valuable the ore, the more dangerous the mission. You could mine anywhere for normal matter, but you're really after materials that can't be replicated - so, you can't mine just anywhere.
      Why Mining?
      Let’s assume replicator technology is 90% efficient. Using Einstein’s E=mc**2, then to create a 1 ton starship armor panel, it takes 1.24 tons of mass (any type) not including the power to run the replicator. In addition to any old matter, we also know that some materials can not be replicated. Ergo, there is mining!
    • Ore & Non-Replicable Matter
      There could be several different types of raw ore, perhaps one or two types from each expanse. Miners/tankers would return so many units of Ore. Raw ore has no other characteristics other than name; but is made up of subcomponents. One of the components would always be "Normal Matter". So, for example, an ore named Pitch-22 might be 80% normal matter, and then so much non-replicable matter: 15% Rubidium, 2% dilthium, and 1% trilythium. All Pitch-22 would have those characteristics.

    • Schematics & Experimentation Some basic schematics are available for purchase, some as unique rewards from exploration missions, but generally you get these by decomposing existing items (you can not decompose crafted items). At the time of decomposition you “craft” a schematic.

      You can try to improve the recipe by experimenting with it by using anomalies and research materials available at Memory Alpha. Success is based on skill, and the more you craft the better you get at it. Simple improvements just rearrange statistics (e.g., instead of 20% tetryon, 20% Polaron, and 0% kinetic you can rearrange it to 10% tetryon, 10% Polaron, and 10% kinetic), more complex changes might improve statistics. In addition to changing component statistics, other items to vary on schematics are the amount of resources required, energy, and time.

      Being able to manipulate schematics is a branching technology (i.e., Crafting classes). At the base level common to all are simple refinery schematics, simple replicator console, and relief supplies. From there it branches out into many specifications: melee weapons, ranged weapons, starship energy weapons, launchers, kits, armor, weapons, engineering consoles, science consoles, tactical consoles, shields, replicators, refinery, starbase components, ship refits, etc. Schematics can be used by anyone (e.g., a doctor-crafter could create a new improved hypospray schematic for use in a normal starship replicator).

    • Refining- Requires raw materials, Formula-Schematics and consoles to convert raw materials into usable materials. This is a batch operation (think factory), you setup a “job” with a given schematic, ore, rare materials, and energy. It completes is so much time based on input volume. How much is converted depends on the schematic and the quality of the refinery.
      Sub-Idea: Anti-Matter is converted from normal matter and used for energy storage and used for fabrication of the mundane parts of items. Possibly it could also be used to run the station, crafting consoles, weapons, etc. as well; making it somewhat vital to keep a healthy reserve to keep the lights going (and a strategical element for space battles).
    • Craftables - Any thing you can get a schematic for you can craft: refineries, replicator consoles, foods, medicines, starbase consoles, ship components, kits, weapons, shields, shuttlecraft, ships, ship refits (upgrade your beloved T4 to an equivalent T5), etc. All crafting is done automatically by replicators (e.g., Factory). That is it’s a batch job, you put in the materials and come back later to get the goods. Quality/quantity is based on the quality of the replicator.

    Public starbases could have general/starter refineries and replicators. Once you’ve built your own you could put them aboard your ship or starbase, building as many as you need. You might also have several types optimized for specific items (remember, you can tailor schematics, so one replicator might be good at medicines, and another better for weapons). Raidisode bosses may have rare items that yield special schematics for either finished items, or subcomponents.

    In order to promote crafter socializing, advanced technology end-components should require advanced technology subcomponents only available from other crafters.

    Starbase Merits
    This has been suggested as a way of thwarting Gold Spammers by having "sharable" merits expressly for the purpose of growing starbases. Possibly connected to crafting, PvE/PvP. the difficulty with it is that once you make merits shareable, it allows spammers entry. Good idea, but no practical implementation yet.

    Trading: Starbases as Centers of Commerce
    In the last few world wars, protecting shipping consumed a large portion of everyone's navy. It should be no different today for Federation or Klingon. You wouldn't send out fully laden resource freighters to be captured or destroyed. Your job, as the captain of a warship, will be to escort the fleet to its destination (not to do the hauling).

    From your starbase you check the computer against your inventories to see where those supplies are needed versus the reward, which is commensurate with the amount of material transferred. Some missions may "lend" special schematics (e.g., relief supplies). Some may require you to do raidisodes to get schematics.

    First you need the stuff to ship. That might be raw resources, or it might be finished goods your fleet's crafters have made from the raw resources. Finished goods bring far higher rewards and are far more dangerous. You might not have what it takes to fill the order, so you might need to get supplies, craft, or even get schematics first to be able to do so.

    Once you have all the "stuff", based on the volume it's going to take one or more npc haulers to haul it where it's going. The more haulers, the more stuff, the greater the reward, the higher the risk. Which means you'll need multiple fleet members to protect large loads. Essentially it would scale up, from solo play to full fleet.

    Escort missions are hard because you have to keep the escort alive (unless your enemy wants to capture it). So, I can see these as PvE or PvP missions. In PvP, the real reward is if you can capture the freighter (that gives you goods for your fleet to transport)! Some breakage probably occurred during capture, and you might have to beam over an away-team to disarm the self destruct.

    Trading encounters occur like the random encounters in sector space. Assume you're delivering emergency relief supplies to a Romulan world, so your fleet has to guard the haulers from the starbase transit gate deep into enemy space. Based on the risk-rating, there will be "n" encounters where the freighters get sucked into a combat instance.

    Your fleet then needs to jump into the furball to destroy the enemy. Not only does this mean destroying the enemy, but using your shields, engineering teams, and science teams to keep your freighters alive. Heck, you might even have to beam an away team on-board to repel boarders. Perhaps you're stuck in the sector on until the freighter can repair their engines? Or, perhaps you just have to get clear of an area of space so you can warp out, or perhaps there's a warp field scrambler that needs to be destroyed while you're keeping your freighters safe?

    In fact, the very first transport mission might be your fleet protecting your initial starbase during its creation phase. After all, the enemy has a vested interest in stopping you while you're weak. For example, you buy the starbase "kit" on Vulcan, a freighter (which you have to protect) travels into a new instance, and you must protect the freighter and the new starbase while it's being constructed (using materials you mined & refined).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    No, it's just that I used to be a huge supporter of fleet owned starbases, but now that I'm no longer in a fleet, it doesn't really seem right to give Starbases to one group while excluding the rest. I prefer Alecto's idea to add player owned starbases in for all players in the higher ranks (rear Admiral Upper, Vice Admiral, Admiral, Fleet Admiral), in place of new ship classes, though I think at least one more Tier of ships should be added first.

    I don't believe a player-owned starbase is the way to go for several reasons, but primarily because it doesn't foster MMO philosophies (that is MMOs aren't meant to be solo-play).

    I've seen my fleet dwindle too, but I like to think that something like this would finally give fleets a reasons for existing and bring such a variety to the game that people return. Combined with mining, trading, PvE/PvP and crafting starbases have something for everyone and can reinvigorate the franchise by bringing that sense of community that currently only the PvPers feel.

    Also, to ease your mind, the other thread has the idea that anyone can create a starbase because they're easy/cheap to get into. However, only a fleet with its communal resources would be able to significantly develop a starbase. So, that gives everyone what they want.

    Also, there's no reason the same ideas (e.g., crafting) can't be applied to starships (really, isn't a starbase just an overgrown starship? :eek:) - which might alleviate a solo-players need to have a starbase.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Hate this idea :eek:, Why: A) not everyone wants starbases for PvE/PvP (they want it for crafting/social/storage), B) its difficult to schedule anything beyond "now" with a large group, C) The solution needs to account for people dropping/adding, D) some starbases will want to defend 4 times in one day, but not other days of the week.
    A) Your fleet has to opt-in to do PvP content (with a 1 week cooldown before changing the setting again). I state this in the OP and know that some will want/not want the fighting feature.
    I. Fleet-controlled Starbase Construction
    a. Construction Notes
      [...]
    • If a fleet desires to not encounter sieges, they can opt-out on a 1 week cool-down.

    B) It is difficult to schedule anything with a group because there is no in-game calendar system or similar system. My former fleet was organized but only because they had to find their own third-party tools for fleet management. More in-game fleet resources (like a calendar) would be great.

    C) This would be the hardest part: adds/drops during Fleet actions. Hopefully, with enough warning/planning via a calendar and alert texts in-game - not many will drop. That said, the total combatants would need to be limited to whichever faction has the less players participating.

    D) That's true. I only put that caveat in so that players wouldn't have to devote all their time and resources to starbase defense. I think the idea of a set day where a starbase is open for Sieges would be a great idea. Let's refine it! :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    A) Your fleet has to opt-in to do PvP content (with a 1 week cooldown before changing the setting again). I state this in the OP and know that some will want/not want the fighting feature.

    B) It is difficult to schedule anything with a group because there is no in-game calendar system or similar system. My former fleet was organized but only because they had to find their own third-party tools for fleet management. More in-game fleet resources (like a calendar) would be great.

    C) This would be the hardest part: adds/drops during Fleet actions. Hopefully, with enough warning/planning via a calendar and alert texts in-game - not many will drop. That said, the total combatants would need to be limited to whichever faction has the less players participating.

    D) That's true. I only put that caveat in so that players wouldn't have to devote all their time and resources to starbase defense. I think the idea of a set day where a starbase is open for Sieges would be a great idea. Let's refine it! :)

    A) Saw that, and honestly my reply did leave out some other ideas - sorry about that. Typically a fleet is comprised of a lot of individuals and as such, some will want to engage in PvP and some won't. But the starbase belongs to all the fleet members. So, ideally, however the mechanism works - only those that want to jump into PvP should go. No one else should be hindered getting to/from the base. Those that do, great. Those that want to keep crafting, well they can do that too.

    B) A calendar won't fix the issue. I could sign up for something next week and then learn my spouse has to work so I have to take the kids to scouts. Real-Life happens. Ideally a fleet schedules a time, but it has to be a go-nogo based on when the time rolls around. It should also be based on the number of defenders (+/- a small percentage). My Fleet's website has a calendar too, but often underutilized. I really like the fleet email-once-per-day they added. I'd also like to see color be enabled in the MotD. Currently its too easily lost.

    C: Ideally it's as simple as people joining the instance. If you keep the attackers and defenders numbers equal to something like 10% then folks could keep added (in fact, I don't see why multiple fleets couldn't attack a starbase.

    Personally, I hate the idea of a fixed day/time. I much prefer the queue system. Set it up whenever you're ready as many times as you want without artificial limits. Also, why limit those that want to devote all their time & resources to starbases do so?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Personally, I hate the idea of a fixed day/time. I much prefer the queue system. Set it up whenever you're ready as many times as you want without artificial limits. Also, why limit those that want to devote all their time & resources to starbases do so?
    Well, it'd be more up to the defenders to determine how often they want to get attacked (or else many wouldn't participate since they might not want to defend the base all the time).

    I should go back and revise that, with the below perhaps?
    Fleets can flag certain days (and hours) that they're available for siege (this is to prevent fleets from spending all their time defending a station - unless they want to).
    Alternatively, fleets leaders can also mark dates/times on a calendar for competing forces to consider.

    For example, if most of my fleet can only make it Thursday night - we can open our base up for sieges that night but also search for starbases that are open for siege on the calendar ahead of time[, whether that day or a few days prior.

    This gives fleets the tools to planning without necessarily gridlocking their decisions. Fleet Administrators could also contact opposing fleets to arrange days.
    Would this work better?

    It's harder to conceptualize but it removes a forced cap from the OP. I might need to do a mock-up to help people understand

    I also don't necessarily mean a calendar per-se but some in-game planning/search tools would be great. There's only so much a Fleet MOTD can accomplish.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    What's your objection to using the existing queue mechanism for PvP for this type of encounter? Is it based on the concept of "Open PvP"? If so, couldn't they just flip the Open PvP switch and do without the necessity of adding new controls for the player?

    Even so, I still generally dislike the idea because I hate the idea of space (which is pretty small in STO) being cluttered with Starbases (in the other thread, they consensus seems to be to have them accessible via transwarp gates) nor am I thrilled with the idea of them opening a new zone for nothing more than being littered with starbases.

    BTW, I say "hate" - but no idea is good or bad, it's just a challenge to keep hammering on it until there are no objections. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    What's your objection to using the existing queue mechanism for PvP for this type of encounter? Is it based on the concept of "Open PvP"? If so, couldn't they just flip the Open PvP switch and do without the necessity of adding new controls for the player?

    Even so, I still generally dislike the idea because I hate the idea of space (which is pretty small in STO) being cluttered with Starbases (in the other thread, they consensus seems to be to have them accessible via transwarp gates) nor am I thrilled with the idea of them opening a new zone for nothing more than being littered with starbases.

    BTW, I say "hate" - but no idea is good or bad, it's just a challenge to keep hammering on it until there are no objections. ;)

    I'll delete the reference to bases appearing on map - and change it to searchable lists. There only needs to be some way of finding these starbase instance maps without necessarily tying it to a map at all.

    The term "map" is too imprecise a term.

    So, fixed!

    Round two. Fight! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.