EDITED: Friday, 30 April
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 ContentsI. 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 Constructiona. 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:
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)
Tier 3 (choose 2 - can also be from previous list; highest member of fleet must be at least Captain 10)
Tier 4 (choose 3 - can also be from previous list; ; highest member of fleet must be Rear Admiral 10)
( - see Fleet Starbase in-game @ ImageShack - )c. Example Space Stations:
__________________________________________________II. Fleet-controlled Starbase Siegesa. 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]
Comments
IV. Benefit to Players/Developers:
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.
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
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:
What do you think?
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.
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." 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. 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").
[Note: updated II. c. Rewards for Sieges to reflect this] 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).
( - see Fleet Starbase Management in-game @ ImageShack - )
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..
I'm working on more in-game mock-ups, if you have seen the one I posted.
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.
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:
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:
- 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":I've moved section IV. Benefit to Players / Developers to the second post of the thread.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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?
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/ |-- )
Hate this idea :eek:, Why: A) not everyone wants starbases for PvE/PvP (they want it for crafting/social/storage),
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.
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).
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:
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.
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.
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?
I should go back and revise that, with the below perhaps? 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.
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!