How could player-owned outposts / bases work?

[yodajedifishmaster]

Assuming that corner is instanced to the player/guild there is no issue, as soon as it goes beyond that you are talking the kind of EvE-esque gameplay I do not want to see in ED in ANY shape or form.

now the only way to do this is to permit lock the system except for the commander(s) who have the permit because they built an outpost there. leaving aside thats its an ideal excuse for FD to charge a considerable real life sum of money to implement it in the next update, which cost could be paid by all commanders who later want to join the new commader run faction and use the system.... i see some good and bad things about it.

first the bad. player leaves the group, or is ejected for griefing or something. i think the only way to remove the permit from them would be to update the whole game? so you might have an unwelcome visitor who can still occasionally get instanced with the group - unless its a private group system of course but then the permit system still has the issue. actual forcing an instance to be denied to all non faction commanders wont apply to non faction npcs, and if i guess right requires fundamental changes to the game code which will introduce bugs and is probably not what FD want to do at this point.

the good news is, like any other faction, you will have to have a presence outside the system in order to have new members join outside of a ticket and wait for update to implement (if not using PG). this means the original group will need to have this established, perhaps FD will give them a community goal and anyone who contributes in the top 10 will have a chance to join the faction or something. then after that faction is present any player wanting to join will have to earn rep by doing missions at the external system. and the group leaders can just refuse anyone they dont want by messages which appear like any other mission critical message. if they persist trying anyways, the leader simply caps the commanders rep below the amount for the faction needed to get the permit mission.

 

[Hedyn Brand]

If I were Frontier, and given the likely reactions of certain sections of this community no matter what they do, I wouldn't touch this particular can of worms with a 65,000 lightyear long barge pole, let alone open it.

We could use that argument with anything. No matter what they add or change somebody will complain, so why keep developing the game at all?

If you aren't interested in a feature, why not go find a feature you want and support that, rather than complain about somebody liking something else? It's up to FD what features to add anyway, and they've already expressed interest in player bases. I'm sure they look at how much interest a thread (or multiple threads) on some desired feature gets and take that into account. Bases are looking good with the constant activity on this one

 

[Avetorian]

Or Frontier could make it easy on themselves and just not do it at all.

I'm stopping you there, Why add atmospheric landing in the future? why add walking in space stations? why add anything else at all? People are gonna complain no matter what they do, Like the other poster said, if you don't support a particular feature, just go support one that you do.

I'll say this again and again, there is plenty of room for everyone to have their cup of tea.

 

[Urbanski101]

I'm sorry but these are public forums, if someone doesn't like an idea they have just as much right to shout it down as you do to support it.

This is a highly contentious issue with valid arguments on both sides. This thread shows that many players don't like the idea of player owned bases, telling them to go away and support an idea they do like is never a worthy response.

Dev time and resource is limited, insisting that every players dreams can come true is just pure fallacy, you want this feature...fine, others do not, let the arguments continue but don't tell anyone they're not allowed to voice their opinion on this.

 

[Tenshi]

There are some design ideas for play owned asteroid bases which can be destroyed, not sure where they got to on the design list though.

Personally I don't want to see player owned space stations of full planet bases with defense systems at all. Maybe a way to plonk down a temporary base or land based mine, landing pad etc. It would have to be able to be destroyed by other players or stolen from by NPC's if they find it. But i think the instancing of the game would make this difficult, unless they implement a wing beacon system for them.

 

[Blackneto]

I would love to steal your player-owned outpost or base from you.

 

[Avetorian]

I'm sorry but these are public forums, if someone doesn't like an idea they have just as much right to shout it down as you do to support it.

This is a highly contentious issue with valid arguments on both sides. This thread shows that many players don't like the idea of player owned bases, telling them to go away and support an idea they do like is never a worthy response.

Dev time and resource is limited, insisting that every players dreams can come true is just pure fallacy, you want this feature...fine, others do not, let the arguments continue but don't tell anyone they're not allowed to voice their opinion on this.

I'm shooting down the argument, and merely passing a suggestion, not my problem if you and others want to blow it out of proportion. That being said I've seen the arguments against this and it all comes down to "I don't want EVE in Elite, or I don't want this feature because I don't need it"

Please go play forum mod elsewhere, thanks.

 

[Cosmo]

I'll say this again and again, there is plenty of room for everyone to have their cup of tea.

Seconded. Lots of people don't like certain features, that doesn't mean it should be removed.

Player owned bases would add a lot to the longevity of the game, increase cooperative play and make the sandbox deep.

 

[Wiskey Echo]

It could work like that: when you reach maximum relations with certain faction
How is it not in Elite's spirit?

Exactly and also in keeping with the spirit of this thread
while I respect that players should have to get "permission" if building in "faction space" and be a lot more involved with an individual local system (trade / security) as has been mentioned the ED universe is MASSIVE! we (the players) can simply build in uninhabited systems. Your idea about chained missions and "building blocks" is something that I believe would be more suitable for "temporary mining facilities" or medium term missions similar to the current timeframe of 7 day CG's but on a much smaller individual / group scale...

again allowing players to "achieve" something and support systems or actions that already exist in game.

 

[lenna]

now the only way to do this is to permit lock the system except for the commander(s) who have the permit because they built an outpost there.

There are other ways this can be done.... I do not approve of any area denial mechanic associated with player/guild owned static features (as a simplistic explanation) be it either through FD or Player enforcement.

If FD are talking about a "guild" owned static features then there must be some tag associated with members which could be used to control their instancing logic.

If we are talking about "player" owned static features then it becomes simpler still (wing leader/multi-crew pilot would control the instancing).

The above should apply to any player/guild owned static feature that is not subject to BGS mechanics and especially true if it is not NPC controlled (i.e. player/guild is not able to arbitrarily deny access nor able to directly affect prices of goods/equipment at said facilities).

I personally think that when FD implement their guild mechanic it will most likely be based strongly on the current minor faction mechanic and thus most changes and expansion will be done via the BGS or FD approved/facilitated Community Goals (perhaps some form of Power Play expansion type mechanic will allow for some indirect control of the underlying minor faction expansion/construction by members). I doubt that FD will implement guild owned facilities in the way some seem to desire it being implemented. As for persistent player owned facilities, I doubt that they will be either arbitrarily place-able by the player nor (in-game currency wise) cheap.

IMO it would be a major mistake to go down the route of allowing player/guild controlled facilities or regions of space... or player/guild controlled economies.

 

[[VR] Frank_G]

When i want to manage an outpost, i play Hellion. What is far up front to be implemented for me, is IVA and EVA focused on the ship.

 

[lenna]

When i want to manage an outpost, i play Hellion. What is far up front to be implemented for me, is IVA and EVA focused on the ship.

I take it you are talking "space legs" (as some call it). Where feature sets are concerned, I am looking for atmospheric planetary flight/landing support personally.

As for outpost management/owning/building, I personally play the X games for that kind of gameplay (which are high in in the list of my top 10 most-played games).

 

[kilvenny]

I believe this is a key area for FD to focus on, yes it is a divisive subject, but got right it has the capability to increase the longevity of the game. The challenge is finding the right balance between making them attractive for players/groups to build and not negatively influencing gameplay for those who don't want them.

At a basic level they would be no different from the current outposts we have in game albeit potentially popping up anywhere in the galaxy. Therefore the number in any system/planet needs to be limited.

In order to make them attractive they need to be of benefit to the player or faction. For a player I think you should get the opportunity to create one and additional ones are subject to a real money purchase. For player factions the ability to build is based on the number of systems currently controlled. If an additional screen for factional command and control, faction missions was added at faction bases, that provided a mechanism for defending existing controlled systems and attacking into new system, this would make them strategically important, since you could get those missions without having to travel more than one system. Then the faction base would become strategically important as a mechanism for the faction developing or retaining its sphere of influence.

However like the other outposts in game it should function like an npc outpost with players free to come and go. Ownership of the station should not be a revenue stream for a player or faction or be capable of being gated by the player or faction.

 

[verminstar]

Or Frontier could make it easy on themselves and just not do it at all.

Even if they hid such bases away in player/guild instances, you know exactly what will happen. No matter what Frontier will do, there'll be those who insist they got it wrong (and I might even be one of them). There'll be those who demand that such bases be visible to all and that they be attackable/destructable.....and if Frontier doesn't they'll leave the game, or protest in-game until they do, or the game will die or something. There'll be those who'll complain about people 'hiding' away in those instanced bases instead of coming out into open. And so on.

If I were Frontier, and given the likely reactions of certain sections of this community no matter what they do, I wouldn't touch this particular can of worms with a 65,000 lightyear long barge pole, let alone open it.

The thing that might work with minimum contention is players and groups being able to own facilities within NPC-controlled bases/outposts, but of course there'll be those that would wail even against that simply because they exactly want Eve-style territorial and asset control.

So using this exact argument, FD should stop developing everything? Thats possibly not the greatest argument Ive ever seen I gotta say, because this could be turned onto just about any aspect of the game, current and future.

Just reading through that...damn boy yer even more bitter than I am. Yer envisaging issues before its even outta discussion threads and assuming ye just know how everyone (as well as yerself) will have issues and complain.

Some people think Im a little toxic, but you? Yer just in a whole league of yer own and Im eternally grateful yer not FD ^

 

[Vorxian]

It's a great topic of conversation Player built stations...?

I think there's a good measure of difference between player OWNED stations and player built stations...

Player owned stations.. might be a bit manical to implement or upkeep, but player built stations can be something the community can, by and large join to build as well. It could be that stations undergo evolution, starting small and getting bigger. Could work. Station x structure starts in some outback part of space.. perhaps halfway to the core, and explorers use it as a refuel post or stop over to get supplies.. The possibilities of player built stations is a superb one. The community team up to ensure the station is built with the relevant resources, and the station becomes a permanent feature of ED.

Player OWNED stations are a different animal. too much management, and too many politics. But if a station can be built by the players, and the game accepts that final construct to be part of the game, and then ownership goes to NPCs, then that would answer many of the issues, and, allow players to construct stations in chosen / great locations that are helpful and beneficial to everyone.

 

[lenna]

It's a great topic of conversation Player built stations...?

I think there's a good measure of difference between player OWNED stations and player built stations...

Technically, we already have player "built" stations using your interpretation - the CG goals for the Imperial and Federal stations in Maia for example.

However, this is not the same as what some seem to be talking about as wanting. The impression I get is some are wanting the kind of station construction like that which appears in the X games... this to me is totally inappropriate for ED.

 

[Avetorian]

Technically, we already have player "built" stations using your interpretation - the CG goals for the Imperial and Federal stations in Maia for example.

However, this is not the same as what some seem to be talking about as wanting. The impression I get is some are wanting the kind of station construction like that which appears in the X games... this to me is totally inappropriate for ED.

I've played the X games you're referring to, not everyone here even know's what X is, so you might want to be more specific. Lets not forget the people who want small deployable bases which has been talked about numerous times in this thread.

However the X games are far different than even how Elite does its station system with the NPCS. because these stations actually manufacture commodities, materials, for the construction of weapons, and ships. You need to have a fully integrated networking going on before you can even begin to profit. That's very different than say EVE online, where you can just put up a citadel anywhere and use it for anything.

To be honest, what is appropriate or inappropriate for Elite is highly subjective, since Elite Dangerous is on the verge of having things never seen before previously in these games. Right now Stations don't actually manufacture or have a stock of items, you don't look at a station selling pulse lasers and then see a number beside them. This means if you're throwing X onto these people wanting stations, you're suggesting a system that is actually different than what they are asking for. The X system would be impossible unless player crafting was implemented.

So no we're not asking for that system, some of us are asking for what is equivalent to setting up a camp site to for themselves for their own personal needs.

 

[lenna]

Right now Stations don't actually manufacture or have a stock of items, you don't look at a station selling pulse lasers and then see a number beside them.

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.

 

[JosiahD]

So using this exact argument, FD should stop developing everything? Thats possibly not the greatest argument Ive ever seen I gotta say, because this could be turned onto just about any aspect of the game, current and future.

Just reading through that...damn boy yer even more bitter than I am. Yer envisaging issues before its even outta discussion threads and assuming ye just know how everyone (as well as yerself) will have issues and complain.

Some people think Im a little toxic, but you? Yer just in a whole league of yer own and Im eternally grateful yer not FD ^

On the contrary - I was merely positing an alternative course of action Frontier could take in regard to the idea of player base ownership. Based on long observation of the varied reactions from this community to pretty much any and every attempt Frontier has made to add gameplay. Of course one could apply the same logic to other content, and I'm sure there are those who would indeed suggest Frontier shouldn't have bothered where it comes to Powerplay, CQC, The Engineers and/or multicrew (I'm not one of them by the way). And if they were to give base ownership a go and get it wrong (and wrong will be a subjective call of course)?

Let's face it, the fact is that the idea of players owning bases, stations and/or outposts is arguably more contentious than Powerplay, CQC, The Engineers and multicrew all rolled into one, depending on one's point of view. Frontier has surely learned by now, if they didn't know beforehand, that no matter what they do, they can't please everyone. And those that aren't pleased won't hesitate with their negative vitriol. If anything, I'm bitter about certain segments of this community more so than Frontier themselves though. There are plenty of things Frontier need to work on in the game - but given the likely response to player ownership of bases, I'm not sure it's worth even going there, even though I personally think player ownership of facilities on NPC bases/stations instead would work quite well (and would even allow multiple players and groups to call the same place home if they choose).

 

[verminstar]

On the contrary - I was merely positing an alternative course of action Frontier could take in regard to the idea of player base ownership. Based on long observation of the varied reactions from this community to pretty much any and every attempt Frontier has made to add gameplay. Of course one could apply the same logic to other content, and I'm sure there are those who would indeed suggest Frontier shouldn't have bothered where it comes to Powerplay, CQC, The Engineers and/or multicrew (I'm not one of them by the way). And if they were to give base ownership a go and get it wrong (and wrong will be a subjective call of course)?

Let's face it, the fact is that the idea of players owning bases, stations and/or outposts is arguably more contentious than Powerplay, CQC, The Engineers and multicrew all rolled into one, depending on one's point of view. Frontier has surely learned by now, if they didn't know beforehand, that no matter what they do, they can't please everyone. And those that aren't pleased won't hesitate with their negative vitriol. If anything, I'm bitter about certain segments of this community more so than Frontier themselves though. There are plenty of things Frontier need to work on in the game - but given the likely response to player ownership of bases, I'm not sure it's worth even going there, even though I personally think player ownership of facilities on NPC bases/stations instead would work quite well (and would even allow multiple players and groups to call the same place home if they choose).

Im just about done arguing about this...all the arguments against are just as those who say no to everything believe the arguments that support it are . Its become circular with no agreement possible because the naysayers wont listen and the supporters wont stop supporting...its become inane and pointless bickering now.

I will not stop supporting this idea however...but this thread has become an echo chamber now and I cant be bothered arguing with those who refuse to even contemplate a compromise. Closed minds are closed and arguing with them is futile and time wasting...Ill wait until it comes up again and it surely will and maybe come at this from another angle.

This community is making me bitter so heres me casually walking out of the one sided "debate"...until another time ^