How could player-owned outposts / bases work?

[lenna]

the naysayers wont listen

Not agreeing with the arguments is not the same as not listening... The "supporters" in the main (one or two exceptions) have failed to address the counter arguments in anything like a reasonable debate...

The arguments for having player built, controlled and locatable "static features" are not sufficient to out-way the downsides.

 

[verminstar]

Not agreeing with the arguments is not the same as not listening... The "supporters" in the main (one or two exceptions) have failed to address the counter arguments in anything like a reasonable debate...

The arguments for having player built, controlled and locatable "static features" are not sufficient to out-way the downsides.

You agree, I disagree, we both went and talked this to death and we still disagree...so lets just agree to disagree...agreed?

You argue from the point of view of the effects on the bgs...I argue that the example I give barely affects the bsg at all. There literally is no middle ground here and regardless what arguments we use, its not gonna make any difference. Far as Im concerned, its not something I consider urgent in that Im doing other things fer the next 3 months anyway...Im happy enough to get back to this later while hoping support grows in the background.

Either way, I still disagree with your argument and fully support player owned structures...Im not gonna get into a circular debate about it because we are arguing from completely different perspectives. If what I supported could effect the bgs in such ways, chances are I would agree with ye as I dont support anything that even remotely effects the bgs in any significant way at all, positive or negative. Yer arguing with others who asked fer that...Im not and never was ergo we literally not on the same book, let alone the same page ^

 

[lenna]

....

Just stop claiming people are not listening when they disagree with you and everything will be peachy...

The fact of the matter is (if you care to actually read my counter arguments) I am dead against player owned/controlled structures which could influence other players' gameplay. Providing all the negative factors are addressed (only truly feasible if the structures are instanced and largely cosmetic in nature) then there is no issue.

 

[Avetorian]

For ship equipment you are correct, but not for general trading goods. As it stands, ED stations are very much like the Trading Stations in the X games - they have stocks of goods and the prices vary according to those stocks. My point was that there are at least some that want to build stations in arbitrary locations to store stuff and/or trade with other players and/or NPCs (c/f Trading Stations in X). Such things are not appropriate for ED IMO.

ED is not exactly innovative except in the sense of adding the multiplayer aspect to the original Elite series formula. The only thing in ED that is missing from the series of X games in essence is planetary landing/roving - the rest have appeared in X at some point in some shape or form. As for adding things never before seen in such games, hardly... but even if it were true that does not make introducing comparable mechanics appropriate either.

As for the arbitrarily place-able "temporary outposts" thing, I think we are highly unlikely to get that - at least with the facilities that some seem to want. It would be way too easy to exploit the mechanic to the detriment of other players and from a game perspective it makes no actual sense IMO.

I can potentially see FD implementing the ability for us to perform some degree of ship repairs while landed though (e.g. perhaps allowing power plant or hull repairs). Also I can see FD adding alternative SRVs at some point which support surface mining properly perhaps (only in terms of filling the cargo hold of the SRV and/or the ship though). However, dreaming about being able to store ships, equipment, and/or cargo at an arbitrarily chosen player location on the surface of some remote rock is at least a little ridiculous in terms of expectations IMO.

The only similarity is the commodities, I forgot to point that out. The X series has a very indepth way of how it uses its commodities like how you need silicon wafers for various things, energy cells and so on. Every commodity is visibly used to craft whatever that station is producing, it's not something you can actually examine in Elite.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJzizYUEF9c "If you are setting out alone, you might be the person that arrives with that ocellus station" EGX 2014. From DB himself. I just want to throw that in there, the devs don't think it's as ridiculous as you do, they want to do it, but want to do it right.

However your last statement about what is essentially a camp site? That's all I want right now, that's all we need right now. Imagine deploying a facility that does certain things like investigate sound sources, produces images from them based on area your in. A system where you can bring back artifacts and research them yourself instead of bringing it to a station and waking for the next community goal, a small camp site to make repairs and keep yourself deep in the void. It's all part of adventuring, those SRVS could be deployed for research and the like as well and having a base to bring their stuff back to would be nice. when your finished you take your stuff and move it on to the next area of your choosing.

 

[lenna]

when your finished you take your stuff and move it.

A camp site, is not the same as a base... we effectively get a "camp site" when we land. FD made a conscious decision to disband said camp site once you rove too far from it (by having the ship leave and enter orbit where it is notionally safe).

As for the repairs, I have pointed out that this does not necessarily require a full base. Besides which I have already expressed my balancing concerns regarding allowing hull/power plant repairs in the field - the only two components which currently REQUIRE you to return to base. An AFMU and synthesis can handle most of the rest. In addition, as soon as you talk about "packing up and moving it" you are getting back to my original point about having everything focused around ship facilities. If you can pack it up and move it, then you can carry it at all times.

As for arriving with an oculus station, that does not necessarily imply ownership, control or even arbitrary player placement either. You could have been hired by the NPCs to deliver a station either by piloting it OR by towing it (probably the former given the exploits of Jacques). There have been comparable missions in the likes of the X series.

Overall, it does not change my opinion regarding allowing player ownership, control, and/or arbitrary placement of non-instanced facilities to be a huge mistake.

 

[Avetorian]

A camp site, is not the same as a base... we effectively get a "camp site" when we land. FD made a conscious decision to disband said camp site once you rove too far from it (by having the ship leave and enter orbit where it is notionally safe).

As for the repairs, I have pointed out that this does not necessarily require a full base. Besides which I have already expressed my balancing concerns regarding allowing hull/power plant repairs in the field - the only two components which currently REQUIRE you to return to base. An AFMU and synthesis can handle most of the rest. In addition, as soon as you talk about "packing up and moving it" you are getting back to my original point about having everything focused around ship facilities. If you can pack it up and move it, then you can carry it at all times.

As for arriving with an oculus station, that does not necessarily imply ownership, control or even arbitrary player placement either. You could have been hired by the NPCs to deliver a station either by piloting it OR by towing it (probably the former given the exploits of Jacques). There have been comparable missions in the likes of the X series.

Overall, it does not change my opinion regarding allowing player ownership, control, and/or arbitrary placement of non-instanced facilities to be a huge mistake.

Yes you've said that numerous times, and we disagree with you, some people just want that sort of game play, land and set up their camp site, which you say is pointless, but those of us who wish for that don't. You've said you want your ship to do these things, and we are saying we want to land and put down a site that can do these things.

Which brings me full circle to "There is enough room in this galaxy for everyone to have their cup of tea" as much as I'd like to have a ship with said facilities, we're talking panther clipper or larger, and at that point you'd need to add more content to facilitate those ships. It's gonna be a problem to solve no matter which direction F-Dev takes.

 

[lenna]

Yes you've said that numerous times, and we disagree with you, some people just want that sort of game play, land and set up their camp site, which you say is pointless, but those of us who wish for that don't. You've said you want your ship to do these things, and we are saying we want to land and put down a site that can do these things.

What you are asking for makes no sense though, it would almost certainly require far more work and effort on the part of FD to do what you would like to do and there would be almost ZERO functional difference. It would not require a Panther Clipper or larger to do what I am really proposing - an Anaconda has sufficient module space to support ship-board modules for appropriate self-repair without too much hassle. As for repairing other ships and/or switching to other ships I think that is something better left well alone.

If FD want to allow us to repair our power plants and/or hull in the field, it will almost certainly be restricted to situations where we are landed (by whatever means). However, I suspect it will never happen either way for the balancing reasons I have previously stated.

As a side thought, adding a Power Reserve (backup battery) module to our ships would potentially allow us to use the existing AFMU mechanic to repair the power plant to at least some level. Repairing the hull probably should be reserved for landed situations (perhaps even restricted to permanent outposts/stations/bases with appropriate facilities).

 

[Avetorian]

What you are asking for makes no sense though, it would almost certainly require far more work and effort on the part of FD to do what you would like to do and there would be almost ZERO functional difference. It would not require a Panther Clipper or larger to do what I am really proposing - an Anaconda has sufficient module space to support ship-board modules for appropriate self-repair without too much hassle. As for repairing other ships and/or switching to other ships I think that is something better left well alone.

If FD want to allow us to repair our power plants and/or hull in the field, it will almost certainly be restricted to situations where we are landed (by whatever means). However, I suspect it will never happen either way for the balancing reasons I have previously stated.

As a side thought, adding a Power Reserve (backup battery) module to our ships would potentially allow us to use the existing AFMU mechanic to repair the power plant to at least some level. Repairing the hull probably should be reserved for landed situations (perhaps even restricted to permanent outposts/stations/bases with appropriate facilities).

Except there would be a functional difference, as I've already stated previously, the base could serve as a tool for explorers to research their findings using the tools it has to offer, you can literally create any reason for putting down a base, in the same way you create any reason for doing anything in this game, Mining for instance is worthless, you don't do anything with the materials but sell them. I don't get it, I'm sorry you want restrictions in the largest game world ever to exist. It's ridiculous. "Landing and reparing hull should be limited to permanent outposts and bases with appropriate facilities?" What? why? who does this affect if I can land and set up shop somewhere and repair my ship?

"If FD want to allow us to repair our power plants/or hull in the field, it will almost certainly be restricted to situations where we are landed" Did you not see the 2.4 info at lave con? Hull repair limpets confirmed.

I've already posted an instance of FD talking about player owned structures in 2014, I've quoted statements from the developers on QA's and you are making statements that contradict what they've even said or looked at.

I don't really understand why any of you would want to land on a planet and sit there and just stare at scenery. I thought people wanted to find things on these worlds, research them, set up a small base, it's practically the dream of most explorers. I went through a thread already where people are unhappy with the beige planets, and are complaining that F-dev only listens to combat. The whole point of landing on worlds is to do stuff on them, if I can't do anything on these worlds except for drive around and scoop things, that's extremely shallow. If that's all the explorers of this game want, it's a wonder why FDev focuses on combat. Thankfully there are others here who see the value of deployable structures.

 

[lenna]

Except there would be a functional difference, as I've already stated previously, the base could serve as a tool for explorers to research their findings using the tools it has to offer, you can literally create any reason for putting down a base, in the same way you create any reason for doing anything in this game, Mining for instance is worthless, you don't do anything with the materials but sell them. I don't get it, I'm sorry you want restrictions in the largest game world ever to exist. It's ridiculous. "Landing and reparing hull should be limited to permanent outposts and bases with appropriate facilities?" What? why? who does this affect if I can land and set up shop somewhere and repair my ship?

As I explained earlier, it is a current restriction and should probably be kept in order to prevent any given player from dominating the first discoveries market. As I said earlier it is all about balancing reasons, the same goes for having to return to an NPC owned facility to hand in exploration data.

On one hand you are saying the temporary base mechanic is "needed" and on the other you are having to make up reasons for having them. Overall, it sounds more like trying to formulate excuses for adding a largely unnecessary mechanic in order to shift game play balance in your favour.

Exploration and discovery does not require player owned permanent or temporary facilities - as with mining, if we wish to research stuff then we should have to make compromises with our ship builds. A ship board research centre could be considered a discovery analogue of a mining refinery. Such facilities' may even be restricted to certain vessels such as the Anaconda (c/f Luxury Cabins being restricted to Dolphin/Orca/Beluga). Whether such things are needed or not is debatable; However, FD do already seem to have plans for 2.4 and maybe something in that will give sensible and justifiable reasons for having some kind of player owned facilities - but IMO they should be limited in scope and location.

 

[Avetorian]

On one hand you are saying the temporary base mechanic is "needed" and on the other you are having to make up reasons for having them. Overall, it sounds more like trying to formulate excuses for adding a largely unnecessary mechanic in order to shift game play balance in your favour.

On the other hand you are largely making up excuses for not having them. You are trying to force the idea that we don't need these things, I am coming up with reasons as to why they COULD be necessary, you are refuting them because you don't want them, It's not even that it impacts your gameplay, you don't want them. Everything done in this game is "Made up" by the developers for whatever reason, community goals, power play, etc. The Devs will have to come up with ways to interact with new features put into the game. I merely suggested one of the ways bases might facilitate that, but whatever.

It's not that exploration does not require player facilities, you just don't want it to.

 

[lenna]

On the other hand you are largely making up excuses for not having them.

Balance reasons is not making up excuses, there are current limits to gameplay for such reasons otherwise we would already be able to synthesise hull and power plant repairs.

The vast majority of the "value added" reasons stated in this thread can be pretty much summed up as "adjusting balance to gain an advantage" - be it storage of cargo/materials/data, repairing hull/powerplants, or being able to switch ships/ship configuration.

There are alternate approaches to these ideas yet discussion of those alternatives is largely shutdown without good counter arguments.

 

[Avetorian]

Balance reasons is not making up excuses, there are current limits to gameplay for such reasons otherwise we would already be able to synthesise hull and power plant repairs.

The vast majority of the "value added" reasons stated in this thread can be pretty much summed up as "adjusting balance to gain an advantage" - be it storage of cargo/materials/data, repairing hull/powerplants, or being able to switch ships/ship configuration.

There are alternate approaches to these ideas yet discussion of those alternatives is largely shutdown without good counter arguments.

Rubbish, what balance reasons? what would be imbalanced? How would it impact you?. Sorry "Adjusting balance to gain an advantage" That is an excuse. It also has no ground to stand on. You don't want people to store modules repair ships and whatever else. You don't want people to be able to land on bases, you are promoting a BORING alternative. "Oh we can have these facilities on our already existing ships and do nothing on the planet" 400 billion star systems, hundreds of billions of planets, and you don't effectively want us to do anything on them. It's non-sense, You don't grasp the scale of this game.

Which brings me back to "The galaxy is large enough for everyone to have their cup of tea"

Seriously do you have your head in the clouds? we are getting hull repair limits, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SYNTHESIS THEM! The only reason we haven't been able to, is the developers just hadn't been able to implement it yet, due to the myriad of other things they've been working on. It has nothing to do with balance.

 

[Saool]

I've said on many other threads about this that I am not in favour of it at all. I think it would be the thin end of the wedge and don't see it fitting in with Elite.

That said...

I would be less opposed to this much more modest idea for those that need to scratch the 'home' itch with regards to player created (not owned, understand the difference) factions:

When a new player created faction is entered into the game, a new small, space born outpost is added to that factions home system. It is a cookie cutter outpost, with a set design and template of facilities and a basic market. It is never the controlling station in it's system. The only thing special about it is that it is locked to that faction, so if that faction lost influence over everything else, lost all other facilities and where sat at 1% in their home system, they would always have that start point and market to try and re-build from. Players would have no other control over it or determine anything about it any more then they can with any other station today.

 

[Avetorian]

I've said on many other threads about this that I am not in favour of it at all. I think it would be the thin end of the wedge and don't see it fitting in with Elite.

That said...

I would be less opposed to this much more modest idea for those that need to scratch the 'home' itch with regards to player created (not owned, understand the difference) factions:

When a new player created faction is entered into the game, a new small, space born outpost is added to that factions home system. It is a cookie cutter outpost, with a set design and template of facilities and a basic market. It is never the controlling station in it's system. The only thing special about it is that it is locked to that faction, so if that faction lost influence over everything else, lost all other facilities and where sat at 1% in their home system, they would always have that start point and market to try and re-build from. Players would have no other control over it or determine anything about it any more then they can with any other station today.

That would be no different then community goals, and would not scratch the itch for any explorer wanting to put up a small base for themselves. you say you don't think it fits with Elite, fine, it doesn't fit your style of gameplay. Thankfully the galaxy is big enough for everyone to have their cup of tea.

 

[lenna]

I've said on many other threads about this that I am not in favour of it at all. I think it would be the thin end of the wedge and don't see it fitting in with Elite.

That said...

I would be less opposed to this much more modest idea for those that need to scratch the 'home' itch with regards to player created (not owned, understand the difference) factions:

When a new player created faction is entered into the game, a new small, space born outpost is added to that factions home system. It is a cookie cutter outpost, with a set design and template of facilities and a basic market. It is never the controlling station in it's system. The only thing special about it is that it is locked to that faction, so if that faction lost influence over everything else, lost all other facilities and where sat at 1% in their home system, they would always have that start point and market to try and re-build from. Players would have no other control over it or determine anything about it any more then they can with any other station today.

Other than the faction locked home outpost/station/base, I think we already have this to a degree.

When FD add a player requested faction to the game, the player gets to select the home system for the faction. I am not 100% sure but I think that system becomes the one place that the faction can not be forced out of using the BGS. The faction does not control any given station/base in that system to start with and supporting players need to work for the in-game faction in order to build up it's influence and eventually gain control of either the system or any given base/outpost.

I like your idea though and I do agree that it does seem to fit well with the general approach FD have taken with ED to date.

 

[Mohrgan]

That would be no different then community goals, and would not scratch the itch for any explorer wanting to put up a small base for themselves. you say you don't think it fits with Elite, fine, it doesn't fit your style of gameplay. Thankfully the galaxy is big enough for everyone to have their cup of tea.

I don;t see any plausible reasoning behind why an Explorer should have portable Repair-Refuel-Rearm platform. I believe a "Personal Parking Lot" of an Asteroid Base has been in the vision for a long while, but these things, in what ever form they end up taking, shouldn't offer the Commander any advantage.

Much like the Ship Transfer issue, there is no appetite for any mechanics that shrink the galaxy. Having Portable bases does just that.

How with the given laws of nature we have in Elite, can you justify how you could carry around, anything that you could park in? What weight issues must ensue if you want to carry a base around, presumably to give you support? FD won;t even let us carry extra ammo as cargo, what makes you think carrying a mini-station station around is going to benefit an Explorer?

This idea is just a complete non-starter. Physics, or god if you prefer, just says no.

 

[lenna]

Rubbish, what balance reasons? what would be imbalanced?

I have spelled it out AT LEAST TWICE already in this very thread... so for a third and FINAL time

Implementing mechanics that would allow players to stay out in the void effectively indefinitely would allow individuals to unreasonably dominate the first discovery market.

That is just ONE of the legitimate balance concerns regarding the whole player owned base thing.

Yes, integrity loss is a form of balancing mechanic as are restrictions in quantities of items we can carry. Allowing storage/stockpiling of cargo and other stuff can be only really for one fundamental reason... to try and bypass these limitations... and there are no good reasons to allow such bypasses to be allowed or exist.

...

+Rep - You have highlighted one of the main points I have been getting at but from a different angle.

 

[Avetorian]

I have spelled it out AT LEAST TWICE already in this very thread... so for a third and FINAL time

Implementing mechanics that would allow players to stay out in the void effectively indefinitely would allow individuals to unreasonably dominate the first discovery market.

That is just ONE of the legitimate balance concerns regarding the whole player owned base thing.

Yes, integrity loss is a form of balancing mechanic as are restrictions in quantities of items we can carry. Allowing storage/stockpiling of cargo and other stuff can be only really for one fundamental reason... to try and bypass these limitations... and there are no good reasons to allow such bypasses to be allowed or exist.

+Rep - You have highlighted one of the main points I have been getting at but from a different angle.

the mechanics are already being implemented to do so, and the people who are already out there can stay out there, and dominate the first discovery marked, again, RUBBISH! We're not out their to compete, we're out their to do our own thing, without needing to come back to the bubble.

there is 400 g billion systems, GOOD LUCK SCANNING THEM ALL! jesus. Also there are no good reasons not to by pass these arbitrarily imposed limitations. We're already gonna be able to do this in 2.4! we can repair our ships synthesize limpets.

Player bases would shrink the galaxy? do not link this to ship transfer please, no one is asking or even suggesting the ability to do that. If anything it EXPANDS the content IN the galaxy and adds DEPTH to a really bare bones feature like exploring. So no, I and many others don't buy the "We are just wanting a gameplay advantage" argument.

We just want to play the game THE WAY WE WANT TO! you know the whole blaze your own trail thing? This is the largest gameworld EVER to exist with the MOST restrictions I've ever seen! How is it that EVE online's mere 7k star systems have more freedom then a game with 400 BILLION STAR SYSTEMS! you guys are so afraid of eve online it's practically made you have PTSD to the mention of anything similar to eve.

Well then get a load of this, EVE was inspire by ELITE! Lmao.

 

[Cosmo]

If anything it EXPANDS the content IN the galaxy and adds DEPTH to a really bare bones feature like exploring. So no, I and many others don't buy the "We are just wanting a gameplay advantage" argument.

We just want to play the game THE WAY WE WANT TO! you know the whole blaze your own trail thing? This is the largest gameworld EVER to exist with the MOST restrictions I've ever seen! How is it that EVE online's mere 7k star systems have more freedom then a game with 400 BILLION STAR SYSTEMS! you guys are so afraid of eve online it's practically made you have PTSD to the mention of anything similar to eve.

Well then get a load of this, EVE was inspire by ELITE! Lmao.

Hear, hear! We want player housing. Something to call our own home in the galaxy. A place to share with friends (guild housing). This can either be done with player-owned Megaships or outposts.

There's plenty of suggestions as to how this would work. Such as we can choose to construct a certain type of base or outpost, customize it, manage some of the NPC activity that goes on there.

Guild Housing (an area for players to hang-out and decorate) is a staple feature of any decent MMO.

Even No Man's Sky has base building. That is the bare minimum which we should have in Elite Dangerous.

[video=youtube;Vzlh3w20ThE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzlh3w20ThE[/video]

 

[Avetorian]

Hear, hear! We want player housing. Something to call our own home in the galaxy. A place to share with friends (guild housing). This can either be done with player-owned Megaships or outposts.

There's plenty of suggestions as to how this would work. Such as we can choose to construct a certain type of base or outpost, customize it, manage some of the NPC activity that goes on there.

Guild Housing (an area for players to hang-out and decorate) is a staple feature of any decent MMO.

Even No Man's Sky has base building. That is the bare minimum which we should have in Elite Dangerous.

Thank you good Sir, I'd give you more rep if I could. You got it, a simple basic function of player housing, base what have you, would do so much for people who want to explore especially when we get the ability to land on ammonia based worlds. The game is so impossibly large that even years from now we won't even have half the galaxy mapped out. The whole first discovery argument is just.. rubbish it is a meager 50% value in your turn in for monetary gain, It gets you no where. People who want to explore will be explorers.

More tools should be given to explorers, I want to find a place to start my tea empire, so everyone can have a cup of tea and chill out. I'm sure my good friend WiskeyEcho would approve of this. After all we explorers are the ones who find the content no? Nothing wrong with people who want do that for a living, in what ever capacity they choose.