How could player-owned outposts / bases work?

[kilvenny]

If you tie the player/faction bases to the BGS then one of the key things you build in is that time needs to be spent in their defence. Whilst a player base is below a certain size I would advocate it is hidden from the BGS and cannot change ownership. However any player can visit those facilities and take advantage of the services. Once a base becomes a certain size or is created by a player faction then it is subject to the BGS and can change ownership.

For a faction even if they were allowed more than one faction base, those faction bases need to be defended. Whatever mechanism that involves means that part of the faction activity needs to focus on defence. Even more importantly in faction conflicts the player faction base should become strategically important which will mean that factions will need to focus attention on them. This should have the purpose of focusing factions on each other rather than individual players. If faction expansion can only happen in systems immediately adjacent to ones you already control, then activities to take over bases can only happen between factions controlling or occupying adjacent systems. Players not belonging to player factions present in adjacent systems should have free travel to and from these stations.

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

I should think that would be implied by the fact that all bases in the BGS are controlled by a faction and can change hands.


Stay Frosty


Cmnd Fulsom

 

[lenna]

I assure you, having just gone back and read that post, you are either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting that post.

It is a pretty valid interpretation of what some may want when taken in the FULL context of this thread.

However, my point was that DNA does have a point... even the first two parts of what they highlighted seems bad enough.

 

[lenna]

I should think that would be implied by the fact that all bases in the BGS are controlled by a faction and can change hands.

In that case, a player is not a faction and should not have direct ownership/control of anything except their ships and perhaps an estate/apartment/hangar within an NPC owned and run facility/base.

That does not preclude players helping a minor faction they have picked an affiliation with expanding but such expansions need to be controlled through the BGS.

 

[lenna]

I sure as hell hope they don't listen to you...

Personal attacks again? ...

Your temporary bases need not necessarily be deployed in deep space though if the location is able to be arbitrarily chosen by the player. There are quite a few unpopulated/uncontrolled systems with-in easy reach of the bubble around Sol where such things could be deployed.

There have been cases of griefers/gankers going out to Sag-A and deliberately "camping" it with the intent of ganking any and all players that go there... at least in Open... so to answer your question, they effectively already have. Except if they died they would have to fly out there again, allowing players to place their own little campsite with the facilities that you seem to want would allow them to re-pawn locally and continue their undesirable behaviours. It would also allow a wider audience to engage in comparable activities, which would be disastrous for ED IMO.

Overall though, SDC/Code my be able to affect the BGS and affect people's gameplay that way BUT their impact is limited - player owned/controlled bases/facilities that persist across all game instances/modes would be at least a step towards allowing such groups to detrimentally affect other player's gameplay even if they stay out of Open... that is why I believe ALL cross-instance facilities should be owned/controlled by minor factions that are in turn both affected by the BGS and restricted by it's rules.

 

[Avetorian]

Personal attacks again? ...

Your temporary bases need not necessarily be deployed in deep space though if the location is able to be arbitrarily chosen by the player. There are quite a few unpopulated/uncontrolled systems with-in easy reach of the bubble around Sol where such things could be deployed.

There have been cases of griefers/gankers going out to Sag-A and deliberately "camping" it with the intent of ganking any and all players that go there... at least in Open... so to answer your question, they effectively already have. Except if they died they would have to fly out there again, allowing players to place their own little campsite with the facilities that you seem to want would allow them to re-pawn locally and continue their undesirable behaviours. It would also allow a wider audience to engage in comparable activities, which would be disastrous for ED IMO.

Overall though, SDC/Code my be able to affect the BGS and affect people's gameplay that way BUT their impact is limited - player owned/controlled bases/facilities that persist across all game instances/modes would be at least a step towards allowing such groups to detrimentally affect other player's gameplay even if they stay out of Open... that is why I believe ALL cross-instance facilities should be owned/controlled by minor factions that are in turn both affected by the BGS and restricted by it's rules.

That's why we have 3 modes of play, you don't want play controlled anything but want to keep this regressive stance which only gives rise to more griefing because that's the only reason to PVP. what comparable activities? pvping in a corner of space? OH NO! how terrible. All you have to do is give players the right to choose how they want to set up their base, if they want others to access it or not for the time they have it deployed.

They would continue their undesirable behavior in one mode, this might encourages explorers to arm themselves, which creates more gameplay and stuff to do out in the open. If they deny their would be griefer access to their docking facilities, then its a battle of attrition, and also an option to NOT engage or be griefed. Just as well no one is actually forced to deal with the griefers.

SO yes I hope frontier does not listen to you, because you are shoving what is essential one of many options onto the people who want this feature. Player controlled bases would be a step towards increasing depth and give players more ways of interacting with the game. They should not be disregarded just because some people might abuse it, the system should be tweaked until a happy medium is found. Again we're not going to ever agree on this so moving on.

If you tie the player/faction bases to the BGS then one of the key things you build in is that time needs to be spent in their defence. Whilst a player base is below a certain size I would advocate it is hidden from the BGS and cannot change ownership. However any player can visit those facilities and take advantage of the services. Once a base becomes a certain size or is created by a player faction then it is subject to the BGS and can change ownership.

For a faction even if they were allowed more than one faction base, those faction bases need to be defended. Whatever mechanism that involves means that part of the faction activity needs to focus on defence. Even more importantly in faction conflicts the player faction base should become strategically important which will mean that factions will need to focus attention on them. This should have the purpose of focusing factions on each other rather than individual players. If faction expansion can only happen in systems immediately adjacent to ones you already control, then activities to take over bases can only happen between factions controlling or occupying adjacent systems. Players not belonging to player factions present in adjacent systems should have free travel to and from these stations.

A player base being below a certain size being hidden from the BGS is an interesting idea. I mean we're not selling anything there anyways, I am sure the idea is we use mining or materials as a resource for repairing our ships which would effectively negate any "Free" repair service, that way if by some luck any trouble maker happened to find this place that can not be so easily found, they would still need to do work to use the base. If enough players start moving to a location and feed materials into some kind of construction facility this could drive an expansion and allow NPCS to move in, and the BGS picks it up, and as more facilities are added even whole ship yards, NPCS from famous companies like Faulcon delacy or core dynamics move on and offer to build ships for sale at the new player influenced systems, you could see the requirements needed for ships to be constructed by the NPCs and feed the station those things and create a ship market, again the money yous pend on ships to goes into the station to further drive the economy.

 

[lenna]

SO yes I hope frontier does not listen to you...

And I hope FD listens to everyone and takes EVERYONE's perspective into account... Unlike yourself, I am not completely rigid nor inflexible - an impression based on the debate in this thread.

 

[Avetorian]

And I hope FD listens to everyone and takes EVERYONE's perspective into account... Unlike yourself, I am not completely rigid nor inflexible - an impression based on the debate in this thread.

Everything you've said points in the opposite direction, but sure, okay that might be my misunderstanding.

Again you're right in the fact I am inflexible on the idea that players should be able to put down a base/house somewhere, as for how it could work, well there are many ways and we are trying to discuss those ways, involving player ownership of bases. So moving on, some further thoughts on what I previously talk about in my last post.

I personally like the idea of a small base growing to the point factions and NPCS moving in, I think that adds a cool and interesting dynamic, again obviously the ideas which we might like would need to be further elaborated on, how it would work who this would affect how much control does a player have, how much control is transferred to the BGS. So on and so forth.

I also think that anything involving refitting or repair shouldn't be done for free, it should require materials and resources found out there, so explorers would need to be careful of what they choose to bring to say repair their hull integrity and power plant, explorers might want to bring a mining laser and some collector limpets with them for extended deployments especially when we land on atmospheric worlds of any kind. I love the idea of system integration, mining having more of a purpose for player use other than just selling the ore and basic engineer usage. I love the idea of salvaging components from crashed ships and cannibalizing them to repair your own.

Hell come on, it might even give something like this

Some interesting back story, even from a player role play narrative.

 

[DNA-Decay]

NPC growth

Here's a suggestion.
You can have a shed.
And an NPC that works for a share of your income like crew.

If you are generous, you could donate your entire income and have a staff of 50 harmless NPCs.

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

We get it, you don't like the idea of player controlled anything. Go play a game of Civilization with only AI factions.

 

[Mohrgan]

Player owned bases that amount to a personal parking lot where you can stroll around and ogle your ships is one thing, and something I believe we can expect. Those ultimately growing into outpost and or stations is something I would rather FD not spend development time on. It's not that I want to deny anyone a feature they desire, it's just I recognize there is a limit to what can be delivered without sacrificing other features, or depth to the one we will get. I'm sorry, moving E|D into the 'command and control' arena is way low on my list.

 

[Avetorian]

......

In conclusion the players of Elite currently mean nothing and do nothing, you are all Holograms, go back to your preprogrammed subroutines, I like tea, tea is good, it is also fascinating how many different types of tea there are in the world. Here is a suggestion for you sir, you can come and donate to my npcs if that's the only gameplay you are looking for, otherwise.. enjoy your cup of tea.

Player owned bases that amount to a personal parking lot where you can stroll around and ogle your ships is one thing, and something I believe we can expect. Those ultimately growing into outpost and or stations is something I would rather FD not spend development time on. It's not that I want to deny anyone a feature they desire, it's just I recognize there is a limit to what can be delivered without sacrificing other features, or depth to the one we will get. I'm sorry, moving E|D into the 'command and control' arena is way low on my list.

I think having your own little parking lot with repairs and stuff for yourself is probably what is gonna be more realistic, and for now that's all I really want myself. The idea of a base growing into an outpost is something that sounds cool to me, it is something I can live without.

 

[Rustnsawdust]

In conclusion the players of Elite currently mean nothing and do nothing, you are all Holograms, go back to your preprogrammed subroutines, I like tea, tea is good, it is also fascinating how many different types of tea there are in the world.

Oh, get over yourself.

 

[Avetorian]

Oh, get over yourself.

Did you have something to add to this discussion or you here to continue the agenda of we don't want player bases. If so why don't you want them? Would you enlighten the rest of us? Or is telling me to get over myself the only thing you are capable of doing? Or perhaps you are looking to join the donate my NPC fund?

I mean what am I supposed to say to that, at least the other guy had a suggestion.

 

[LJITimate]

im not too fond of the idea, if and when we can walk around I would like to be able to buy an apartment in a station but making our own houses? go to minecraft or even the dreaded no mans sky for that

 

[JosiahD]

We get it, you don't like the idea of player controlled anything. Go play a game of Civilization with only AI factions.

Of course, it could equally be said that those who DO want player controlled outposts/bases/stations should likewise go play another game that does provide that sort of gameplay? Your suggestion goes both ways.....

 

[Avetorian]

Telling people to go play something else just because they want a certain feature that may exist in another game is pointless. There are plenty of people not posting on these forums that wish to see player settlements, No one is suggesting to minecraft their base. Prefab structures that you put down are what would be expected.

This is Elite Dangerous, the devs have talked about this, have taken an interest in this, so it's going to happen in this game. This thread is about how it could work, not about whether people want to see it or not.

We will be landing on planets and getting out of our ships and walking around, maybe shooting things. You gonna tell people who want to drive other vehicles than spaceships or shoot guns in hallways to go play other games too? This is going to be a multi-genre game. Just accept it.

 

[lenna]

We get it, you don't like the idea of player controlled anything. Go play a game of Civilization with only AI factions.

Hate to break it to you but ED only has AI controlled factions... CMDRs are mere cogs in the wheel, flotsam on the tide, etc... Not CEOs, Emperors/Empresses, Kings/Queens, Admirals/Generals, nor even simple site managers...

The major faction ranks are merely honorary titles and AFAIK that has always been the case in the Elite series of games.

Should FD introduce our ability to affiliate our selves with a minor faction I will doubt that affiliation will grant individuals the level of control that some seem to desire. If they do, it would be a HUGE mistake on their part IMO.

 

[Avetorian]

Hate to break it to you but ED only has AI controlled factions... CMDRs are mere cogs in the wheel, flotsam on the tide, etc... Not CEOs, Emperors/Empresses, Kings/Queens, Admirals/Generals, nor even simple site managers...
.

I hate to burst your bubble but um, I'm a rear admiral in the Federation and a Duke of the empire, well on my way to be King.. I think that's supposed to mean something one day. More than mere honorary titles for sure. After Military Careers are something that was discussed with Frontier. but that's another topic entirely.

 

[lenna]

I hate to burst your bubble but um, I'm a rear admiral in the Federation and a Duke of the empire, well on my way to be King.. I think that's supposed to mean something one day. More than mere honorary titles for sure. After Military Careers are something that was discussed with Frontier. but that's another topic entirely.

Regardless of the "military career" potential aspects, that still does not discount the point that the titles are merely honorific in nature...

I am a Rear Admiral myself and slowly working on my Imperial rank equivalent... as for the ranks meaning something, they do - they indicate a level of trust that the given overriding major faction has in your abilities or at least in your support of their interests. Currently, it primarily locks certain ships and system access behind the rank requirements but I would imagine that optional rank locked missions may be added at some point.

and as for being another topic entirely, it is hardly an irrelevant point given the nature of base building that some seem to desire.