By Request: Player built (NOT "owned") Outposts

OK, here a summary thread of my idea of player-built outposts. I'll add to it as time goes by with new ideas and clarifications.


-----------

Player-built outposts would be an incredible addition to the game, but it seems like FD, and others, are misguidedly concerned about "ownership" and all the conflict and weirdness that that would entail.

Basically, the concept of "ownership" would be completely moot, the finished outpost would act like any other, and offer features determined by the builders. There would be zero further benefit to the original builders, other than a sense of accomplishment, which cannot be undervalued. Maybe the builders can name the station (with approval), and have some sort of recognition, like a "Builder's Plaque".

Think of it as a wing-level "Community Goals" project, but with no end-benefit, other than the satisfaction of a job well-done! ;)


Outpost-building within a specific instance would be fairly easy, the caveat being that the outpost would suddenly "appear" in all instances when it is finally finished/approved. Maybe there would some kind of process to follow that made the outpost essentially invisible to all players except the wing building it* until it was added to the local system map, etc.

Since the outpost building would be an altruistic endeavour, there would be absolutely no need to "protect" it, or make it's construction be able to be disrupted by non-builders in any way. The whole concept of needing to "protect" it, or "attack" it would be utterly and completely irrelevant.

To add a sense of urgency, there could be some sort of time limit when building, and have all component elements need to be mined, not purchased. The time limit could be something like 3-5 days, and if the most basic modules are not completed, the effort would fail, and the build would need to re-start.

All in all, it's fairly trivial to implement, with a minor amount of planning and some extra assets, like a "constructor" vessel, and the corresponding UI for the vessel.


* I see this as pretty much a joint effort pre-requisite, both a private group and a wing to simplify coordination of effort and tracking of status.


I'd see the building process go like this:

- Constructor vessel is purchased (250 million CR): 750T cargo, CANNOT access Commodities Markets, 20LY jump range empty.

- Constructor pilot finds applicable location (must orbit planet/moon), resources nearby

- Wingmates plan features and determine resource requirements

- Wingmates mine resources

- Constructor pilot deploys collector limpets to pick-up delivered materials required for first "core" module, and when enough is collected, deploys "builder" limpets to build the module. Repeat as desired for further modules (landing pads, etc)

As an example, the first "core" module might cost: 250 Platinum, 100 Paladium, 75 Gold, 50 Silver and 50 Panite. Module "cost" would depend on functionality. Capability upgrades (outfitting(?), re-arm/re-fuel, etc) would be added to the core module, at a cost.

* NOTE: A root caveat would be that only cargo dropped by the wingmates would be collected, thus limiting construction to a small number of players, such that large PvE groups don't dominate construction projects.


- Build modules until "finished" (as big as you like, but there would be an absolute minimum configuration), then submit for approval/naming.

- Once approved, the station is added to the environment, and is subsequently "frozen" in that build state.


All sorts of caveats and limitations could be placed around outpost location and building like:

- Player-built outposts are independent and impossible to influence

- No bulletin board would ever be allowed since that suggests alignment/influence

- Maximum distance allowed from existing outposts/stations (no outposts suddenly appearing next to Sag. A!)

- No additions to already occupied systems

- Resources must be found in-system, or mined nearby (15LY?)

- No Nav Beacon, thus no local NPC players (possible?)
 
Last edited:
I could see tying this to the Open/Private/Solo mechanism.

If you start the project in Solo, only you can work on it. (but from any mode)
If you start it in Private, only members of the Private Group can help, from any mode.
Open... anyone can help.
 
I could see tying this to the Open/Private/Solo mechanism.

If you start the project in Solo, only you can work on it. (but from any mode)

Not possible, you need to mine the resources and the Constructor ship would be too slow to accomplish even the first module in the limited time allowed. Perhaps the Constructor ship is unarmed, to make it a no-brainer... This needs to be a very expensive (time invested), significant, team effort.

If you start it in Private, only members of the Private Group can help, from any mode.
Open... anyone can help.

Open is not practical since you could be "disturbed" by others, and that's a horrific can of worms you don't want to get into. Far too many variables involved if you try to execute it in Open, the programming logistics would probably double.
 
Last edited:
Imho, sounds like a bit too arcade.

edit.

One more thing...

Think about how many outposts the game would have soon after?
 
Last edited:
Making outpost without possibility of owning it and controlling in my opinion is just waste of time. Better idea is to allow player to own small bases which will acts like house in typical mmo. Also it should allow for crafting and storing items, modules and ships. Great option will be possibility of selling items on desired prices on own little base.
 
There are four billion system in the galaxy, you'd never notice them... ;)

Indeed, I could not separate one system without station from another. But 100-1000? 10000? New systems with outpost? I actually might notice that, and I even rather fast I believe.
 
Indeed, I could not separate one system without station from another. But 100-1000? 10000? New systems with outpost? I actually might notice that, and I even rather fast I believe.

Only a small proportion of players will have the assets to take on construction, you'd hardly see "10,000" of them, and keep in mind that they would need to be in proximity to a system with (preferably) pristine metallic rings, which would space them out quite a bit.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Making outpost without possibility of owning it and controlling in my opinion is just waste of time... ...it should allow for crafting and storing items, modules and ships. Great option will be possibility of selling items on desired prices on own little base.

This is exactly what FD will never do, so all you're left with is to try to pursue a building activity that immortalizes the builders, and gives you something useful to do when you've pretty much plateaued in the game.
 
I think this suggestion is more complicated than it needs to be, specifically with the idea of using constructors. Personally I think a superior implementation would be to make it a quiet mini-CG that was generated based on some event in powerplay, or the growth state of a minor faction.
 
I think this suggestion is more complicated than it needs to be, specifically with the idea of using constructors. Personally I think a superior implementation would be to make it a quiet mini-CG that was generated based on some event in powerplay, or the growth state of a minor faction.

That just becomes yet another "scripted" job to do, regardless if the original idea came from someone outside of FD.

It's just more meaningless interaction with a sterile universe, zero creativity, just a grind with a vaguely unique purpose, completely determined by others.

For it to have any meaning, the individual players need to decide how to proceed and what scope the project will entail.
 
Last edited:
For it to have any meaning, the individual players need to decide how to proceed and what scope the project will entail.
This is bull. I'm quite insulted you've tossed this rubbish of a sentence at me.

The meaning of something is in no way shape or form decided by how much control the players have over it versus its automation. Something the player builds by hand can be meaningful, completely random happening to the player can be meaningful. Something built by the player can be meaningless, something completely random can be meaningless.

Here's an example. You talk about the galaxy being sterile - it is. You are absolutely right. So, with things like powerplay, which is 100% dictated by player action (and FD bailouts), how unsterile is that making the galaxy? How meaningful is it?

Absurd.

How do you bring a sterile world to life? It's got very little to do with the players - whoever gave you that idea was severely misguided. A cold body isn't alive if the player's wrist deep in its chest beating its heart. A world comes to life when it can move without assistance or intervention. That is, things happen completely without players needing to be there to see it or make it happen.

In three lines you have successfully encapsulated everything that is wrong with modern multiplayer game design.
 
This is bull. I'm quite insulted you've tossed this rubbish of a sentence at me...

...

How do you bring a sterile world to life? It's got very little to do with the players - whoever gave you that idea was severely misguided. A cold body isn't alive if the player's wrist deep in its chest beating its heart. A world comes to life when it can move without assistance or intervention. That is, things happen completely without players needing to be there to see it or make it happen.

Powerplay is a utterly and completely meaningless time-sink with absolutely no significant outcome other than shuffling deck chairs; the systems are the same, the experience is the same. What's the point?

About your last point... Huh? Pseudo-poetic ramblings with zero meaning. A dead moon is a dead moon, no amount of code magic is going to change that, but if a player can land and establish a colony/base, then that has changed the dynamic substantially; it allows other players a way-station, and the builders an immense sense of accomplishment and a place that they could legitimately call "home" since it is their utterly and completely unique undertaking, absolutely no-one else had any input, where it is and what it is are unique personal choices.

That is the bottom line, currently there is absolutely zero personal impact in the physical ED universe, other than pointless scripted events.
 
Last edited:
Powerplay is a utterly and completely meaningless time-sink with absolutely no significant outcome other than shuffling deck chairs; the systems are the same, the experience is the same. What's the point?

About your last point... Huh? Pseudo-poetic ramblings with zero meaning. A dead moon is a dead moon, no amount of code magic is going to change that, but if a player can land and establish a colony/base, then that has changed the dynamic substantially; it allows other players a way-station, and the builders an immense sense of accomplishment and a place that they could legitimately call "home" since it is their utterly and completely unique undertaking, absolutely no-one else had any input, where it is and what it is are unique personal choices.

That is the bottom line, currently there is absolutely zero personal impact in the physical ED universe, other than pointless scripted events.
Line one: calls me right
Line two: ignores my post
Line three: restates original misguided claim

Okaaaaay. *clap clap* I'd bet money the next post will be an encore.

I'll try to use smaller words, since higher level analogies have been dismissed as poetic rambling. You feel powerplay is pointless. Well powerplay is 100% the result of direct player actions. Not unlike a player colony on an otherwise lifeless moon is 100% player actions. This is an example of how activities that are 100% player actions may not make the world any more meaningful.

You put a hundred people on a dead moon and ask them to build a colony. What you're failing to comprehend is that the people and what they can do have no direct correlation to whether that situation is a living or sterile one. The quantifier that defines whether something has meaning is not defined just by what the player can do with it.

A book can have meaning. Can the [viewer] affect the outcome of the book? No, they cannot. So why can books be meaningful? They are literally nothing but a series of scripted events.
Because being able to land on a book and build a colony is not what brings that book to life. What brings it to life is quite opposite actually - the characters and the world in the book move without any input from the [viewer]. The characters have powerful personalities, the world gets pushed pushes back, and events unfold in a believable way.

A dead moon is a dead moon and no amount of code will change that huh? What a stupid thing to say. Code can put NPCs on that moon. Code can make NPCs interact with each other in a believable way. Code can make events affect this dead moon. Code can make events change NPC behavior. Suddenly, this dead moon isn't dead anymore - it's very much alive, moving without assistance or intervention. It is living and breathing and moving. And guess what? No players necessary.

I think you're latching on to the idea that the players should be the center of the game. Please tell me you didn't watch SAO one day then think it must be the most amazing MMO in the world. There's a reason SAO doesn't exist. It never can, not like that. So abandon that idea. With the exception of some oddballs like Second Life, the game and game world needs to be center of the game - it's the platform on which all players must stand on, so it must be the most robust element of the game.

I think you really need to sit down and read what I post instead of just waving your hand and dismissing it. I completely agree that ED lacks a degree of personal impact, but this is not what makes it shallow or sterile or dead. What will bring the galaxy to life is not what the players can do to it (an example made clear by powerplay), it starts with what the galaxy can do to itself and to the players. To say that players being able to build stations on a moon is going to fix this is like saying that buying an anaconda is going to make you a successful miner. This may be true, but it's not at all necessary and but one facet of much grander process.

As an example: powerplay. What would bring powerplay to life? Scripted events. Mini-CGs that pop up when certain criteria are met. Fleets that move. Objectives that want to be met. Benefits and detriments from various sutuations. Powers that actually have agendas and desires and motives, such that when they are pushed, they push back. How can this be meaningful to the player? Powers affecting players in a harsher way, going so far as to deny a pilot from large swaths of space. Benefits to various station services in the area a player likes to operate in. More security for miners or more black markets for smugglers who want a larger network of operations. Perhaps without a particular goal being met, all players aligned to a power get a reduced paycheck that week. All things that the game does to affect the player, as a result of the players having affected the game. This is meaning in its most engaging form. Not a mundane activity like trade 10m tons of scrap to a moon and watch the progress bar fill.

Here's another concept I bet you won't enjoy: Nothing is meaningful without failure. One of the reasons I don't like the constructor idea is the accessibility. It's too easy. Anyone can buy a constructor. Any group can mass haul to a specific dead moon. However, not anyone can get an entire power organized within a week to meet a specific goal. It's pretty boring and basic to make something challenging due to time constraints. That's a facet of artificial difficulty. Something that is the result of more uncontrollable forces such as dumb luck or thousands of coordinated player efforts is going to hold a lot more meaning than a a few dozen people A->B hauling in their T9s.

The implementation in the OP is no less shallow than anything else in the game. I'd go so far as to say it's a lot more shallow.
 
Line one: calls me right
Line two: ignores my post
Line three: restates original misguided claim

...

Waaay Too Long D/R


- Rust has sold 3 million copes, and is still Early Access!

- Minecraft has 20 million on PC's alone and over 50 million on mobile. Minecraft has an untold number of communities where players build/fight/survive, and myriad of variations therof.

So, yes, players can and do want to explicitly craft & build and "make their mark" in a game, whether it be PvP, PvE or purely creative.


Pointless comparisons to fiction are meaningless when you have a galaxy full of real humans! Placing the players at the same level as the NPCs is where the ED paradigm fails miserably, and always will. NPCs exist for those that play in Solo or Group modes to give some (painfully artificial) sense of "life" in the Galaxy.

Changing a narrative in PowerPlay with gentle pushes here & there is still an utterly empty experience, it's still little more than a scripted board game with other players you can't see nor significantly interact with. Little more than the shuffling of pointless labels across the bubble, with absolutely no visible and/or persistent physical impact.

PowerPlay is basically a failed experiment, with a small minority of players engaged in it in any significant manner. No one cares about cardboard cut-out characters and lame narratives that try to give them "depth".

It's all pointless noise that distracts from what the majority of players do, which is make money and buy better ships. That being said, there needs to be something rewarding to do with all that money and experience. Almost comically, those that are involved in PowerPlay mostly do it to generate more income for them, not because it's compelling content, or they give a crap about the "story".


You clearly don't get how empowering the ability to physically impact the environment would be, even if it is in fairly trivial ways to begin with.

Try Minecraft in "Adventure" mode, and you'll see what a frustrating experience it is. It devolves the game into a crude FP slugfest with dull linear gameplay.

ED is inching closer to a loot/construction/crafting metaphor, but they just need to push a little harder and take the logical next step that puts the power to truly create in the player.


The bottom line is that it's not about you, it's about the player(s) that decide to undertake a project and see it through to completion. The players that take the effort to build something could give a rat's ass about what you, or anyone else, thinks and how it (if at all) may impact them. The player makes their own narrative, not a script...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom