How could player-owned outposts / bases work?

[lenna]

Fleet Admirals, no. Admirals, yes. Kings, yes.

I covered that earlier... those specific titles are primarily honorific in nature.

Adding player-owned outposts/bases may not stop it being a flight sim but if implemented in the way some want to see them iimplemented it would add elements that could be used by players to adversely affect other player's gameplay by proxy.

Overall though, should player bases/outposts ever be implemented the actual impact will need to be carefully assessed by FD (it may even require a protracted - 3 months or longer - Beta period to properly assess it).

Perhaps they will make it so you have to be affiliated with a minor faction in order to build a base and the access rights/area denial aspects are determined by the affiliated minor faction and not the player. If a player changes affiliation, then any bases they owned would be claimed by the minor faction they had been affiliated with at the time they built it and they would lose any rights to the base itself except what rights they would have had as a third party. In such a case, it could be that while the player may administer a given base the BGS may decide a hostile minor faction gains control of it, in such a case the player may need to permanently yield control to the BGS.

IMO Command and Control gameplay and MMOs do not mix well.

 

[Avetorian]

Except such base building WOULD effect my gameplay IF it appears in my game instance - I don't want to see it in any shape or form - filtered on a comms panel or universe map is not good enough.

So if someones base appears in your game instance, provided you are even able to find you're gonna be mad? Are you for real? I don't think I can take you seriously after that. There are many ways this could work, in both a positive and negative way, for now we'll just stick to small player bases, no empire or super power player factions. A house, if seeing someones house really bothers you, then you should not play MMO games, i mean god damn dude, you could have everyone build a base on random ammonia world X and you may fly for hundreds of kilometers with out ever seeing one, never mind the insane high numbers of trillions of other planets we have

This probably won't be read but i'll still post it.

By default in the comms tab all player bases are filtered to reduce clutter but can be shown on the panel when you want to find them.

Bases can only be built on a specific game mode. So if you built a base in Mobius it would only show up on Mobius or if your a solo player you would be the only person to ever see your base. This also makes Open play completely open for others to interact with it and either trade, kill, or do any other things players do.

Bases need limpets and/or workers/slaves and specific materials to build. Limpets/workers assemble the base with the materials provided which allows them to have value. These bases don't take a very long time to build (Max 1 week for the largest of stations) and have slightly weaker weapons than the invincible NPC stations.

That's an interesting idea, so I'll throw this at you. What if say for instance you build a base with your friends you got your little home away from home going on, it could be a temporary. You find an option on the base where you can change the setting on it, to broadcast a beacon for players in open or otherwise to see, and use the facilities in their instance. If you stop broadcasting your beacon, then any new commanders wont find it, and existing commanders won't see the base after they leave it.

I like the idea of bases requiring materials to be built, but the question I have is then how would that work? Does a ship have access to a blueprint, you and your buddies find an acceptable location on a site, a facility is deployed from the ship, you then use your ships to ferry cargo to said facility and it begins producing little drones to begin constructing the base?

 

[4fast5me]

Player owned stations and systems are already a thing as you well know by way of player factions. Player owned capitol ships are also already a thing. Lavigny's Legion has three capitol ships. To my knowledge we are the only player faction with capitol ships. Just as at the moment Canonn are the only player faction with a megaship.

 

[lenna]

Player owned stations and systems are already a thing as you well know by way of player factions. Player owned capitol ships are also already a thing. Lavigny's Legion has three capitol ships. To my knowledge we are the only player faction with capitol ships. Just as at the moment Canonn are the only player faction with a megaship.

Actually they are not strictly speaking "player owned", players do not control their movements, dictate zones of control, nor how other players can interact with them the underlying BGS and minor faction AI does (at least AFAIK). Nor do players strictly speaking dictate how a given "player faction" expand in the game in any direct sense of the term. Player factions are just NPC controlled minor factions where specific players are considered the IPR holders for that faction.

The interpretation most people would apply to "player owned", is that they have at least a degree of direct control over the asset in question - something I hope we never see in any meaningful sense of the term "direct control".

 

[kilvenny]

Player owned stations and systems are already a thing as you well know by way of player factions. Player owned capitol ships are also already a thing. Lavigny's Legion has three capitol ships. To my knowledge we are the only player faction with capitol ships. Just as at the moment Canonn are the only player faction with a megaship.

This is an interesting observation. The ships are available in all instances and in the case of the megaship, it can be accessed by all players. In other words an implementation that does not at this point confer any material advantage other than status on the "owning" faction, save for one thing. The exception is that for Canonn the ship provides a stepping stone for exploration and first discoveries. I believe this fits well into the mantra of Elite, but also gives us an insight into player "owned" bases and FD are using this to see how it impacts the game.

 

[JosiahD]

This is an interesting observation. The ships are available in all instances and in the case of the megaship, it can be accessed by all players. In other words an implementation that does not at this point confer any material advantage other than status on the "owning" faction, save for one thing. The exception is that for Canonn the ship provides a stepping stone for exploration and first discoveries. I believe this fits well into the mantra of Elite, but also gives us an insight into player "owned" bases and FD are using this to see how it impacts the game.

However, in their current form such megaships have no real impact on the game more than any other NPC-controlled asset - they're NOT player owned or controlled. So I don't know what Frontier would learn from it that would add to deciding about implementing player ownership or control of such things. The main concern some of us have is the potential....potential mind you, not certainty....that the eventual evolution of any player ownership/control of things like bases (and megaships too I suppose) would be towards a territorial control/contest type of gameplay. Because there ARE indeed people who want that. In the opinion of many, that takes Elite down an undesirable path such that it's no longer an Elite style of game. For mine, it'll simply come down to implementation, should Frontier explore it.

Player controlled bases as part of a territorial control type gameplay? Categorical no thanks from me. It's not appropriate for this particular game in my opinion.

Player controlled bases only visible in your own instance? Seemingly harmless enough, except that won't be enough for some because they want the former or complain that they can't impact on other player's bases etc. So I'd personally stay away from that approach due to the potential for things to get messy and would remain contentious. That said, if Frontier choose that path, I wouldn't die in a ditch over it either. If it subsequently evolved from this to the territorial control approach though.....

Player ownership of facilities on an NPC-controlled base, like a hangar, office space or apartment? Sounds like a good option, not very contentious and in my opinion has the benefit of enabling many CMDRs or groups to call the same place home. The best compromise in my opinion, and should(?) be easier to implement than whole player-owned bases (given the increased customisation options players will want for a base vs simply for a hangar or apartment).

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

I covered that earlier... those specific titles are primarily honorific in nature.

Adding player-owned outposts/bases may not stop it being a flight sim but if implemented in the way some want to see them iimplemented it would add elements that could be used by players to adversely affect other player's gameplay by proxy.

Overall though, should player bases/outposts ever be implemented the actual impact will need to be carefully assessed by FD (it may even require a protracted - 3 months or longer - Beta period to properly assess it).

Perhaps they will make it so you have to be affiliated with a minor faction in order to build a base and the access rights/area denial aspects are determined by the affiliated minor faction and not the player. If a player changes affiliation, then any bases they owned would be claimed by the minor faction they had been affiliated with at the time they built it and they would lose any rights to the base itself except what rights they would have had as a third party. In such a case, it could be that while the player may administer a given base the BGS may decide a hostile minor faction gains control of it, in such a case the player may need to permanently yield control to the BGS.

IMO Command and Control gameplay and MMOs do not mix well.

I had more or less decided that I'd said enough about this subject but something occurs to me.
You say you hate the idea of player owned bases because they may affect the BGS. A statement which I strongly contest as it's patently untrue. Nevertheless: in the next paragraph you state a method that you might live with which clearly involves the BGS directly.

As far as I'm concerned. A small player base would no more affect the BGS than owning a ship or better yet than owning a Scarab...

o7

 

[lenna]

You say you hate the idea of player owned bases because they may affect the BGS.

Incorrect interpretation of what I have said, I object to player owned/controlled cross-instance/cross-mode bases because of the potential for net-negative affects on the gameplay of others.

If the bases are built by the player but owned and controlled by minor factions then there is slightly less of a concern.

I do not object to player owned hangars/apartments with-in NPC owned and controlled bases though...

The primary concern is the potential for griefing via proxy, but there are secondary concerns related negative affects if players are allowed to build up massive stores of certain items at bases or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Saxon Kili]

I think we should have our own private wormhole system. You find it. You permit lock it. It does not affect any BGS outside its own system. You can mine, build, have a war in there, whatever you want. Maybe find other wormhole systems connected to it. Invite your friends.

 

[Avetorian]

The primary concern is the potential for griefing via proxy, but there are secondary concerns related negative affects if players are allowed to build up massive stores of certain items at bases or anywhere else for that matter.

That base concern comes from a pure lack of understanding on the scale of the game. putting a base on a planet does not equal system control or proxy control, the only mode that can be affected is open play, the most that would happen is the near impossible chance that players see these locations.

Players storing items, let me think about this one, hmm, nope, can't do anything other than sell them or just use items for engineers. If you're so concerned about credits, well that's moot because I have well over 2 billion in assets, my buddy is working his way into the umpteenth billions in terms of credits. You're not really looking at the intricate details of how this would actually work, and what level of affect it could have. System wide control is IMPOSSIBLE no matter how many bases you have on a planet. The whole game is divided in infinite instances, the bases could be implemented in a way that they can only affect the instance they are in, even in open play. The same way ships are, you could be in open play in the same spot as another pace at the same co-ordinates, right ontop of each other, but you would not see the other ship there because of instancing. The same can be done for bases.

 

[lenna]

That base concern comes from a pure lack of understanding on the scale of the game. putting a base on a planet does not equal system control or proxy control, the only mode that can be affected is open play, the most that would happen is the near impossible chance that players see these locations.

You are making huge assumptions about the potential placement... and that is where my objection to allowing arbitrary placement comes in... we have been round this loop so many times it is ridiculous... I think you are ignoring a lot of the side issues because you can not come up with a counter without compromising on your approach.

The scale of the game does not prevent the situations arising nor does it excuse certain in-game behaviours or behaviour trends.

 

[Avetorian]

You are making huge assumptions about the potential placement... and that is where my objection to allowing arbitrary placement comes in... we have been round this loop so many times it is ridiculous... I think you are ignoring a lot of the side issues because you can not come up with a counter without compromising on your approach.

You offer no compromise, because there is none, you offer no argument with any foundation to work on, all you post is "negative this negative that" With out any real tangible info, because you are making serious assumptions and have been since your first post on this thread. There is always going to be a problem with any feature Fdev implement, your biggest fear is griefing by proxy and the "Negative affects on the BGS"

Putting a base down does not equal system control. Proxy control is merely an RP thing for people in open play, because as I just said the game is divided in instances, two ships can be in the same spot and not see each other due to this, the same can be done for bases. It's not that hard to figure out.

You have failed to provide any real hard examples at how a player owning a base and having storage in there own instance, even if its temporary would negatively affect you.

Oh and your counter proposals are your own personal agenda to not have player bases, NPC bases are not the same as player bases, a player hanger is not the same as a player base, this thread is about how player bases could work, and about us placing our bases where we want outside of human controlled space.

 

[JosiahD]

You offer no compromise, because there is none, you offer no argument with any foundation to work on, all you post is "negative this negative that" With out any real tangible info, because you are making serious assumptions and have been since your first post on this thread. There is always going to be a problem with any feature Fdev implement, your biggest fear is griefing by proxy and the "Negative affects on the BGS"

Putting a base down does not equal system control. Proxy control is merely an RP thing for people in open play, because as I just said the game is divided in instances, two ships can be in the same spot and not see each other due to this, the same can be done for bases. It's not that hard to figure out.

You have failed to provide any real hard examples at how a player owning a base and having storage in there own instance, even if its temporary would negatively affect you.

Oh and your counter proposals are your own personal agenda to not have player bases, NPC bases are not the same as player bases, a player hanger is not the same as a player base, this thread is about how player bases could work, and about us placing our bases where we want outside of human controlled space.

I don't disagree that simply plonking a single base down or a station in orbit around a planet would not amount to system control. But what about those groups who will coordinate and populate a system, or region, with 50, 100 or 500 bases, outposts, stations etc (subject to any maximum limit that might be applied of course per system)? That will undoubtedly be tantamount to that group at least attempting to exert such control on the system, whether gameplay supports it or not. Groups attempt to do that now, without base ownership, and complain they can't control the actions of other players in *their* space do they not? And of course such a group will lobby for the mechanisms to do so, as they do now (and it's anyone's guess whether such lobbying would be successful or not). What if that were to occur in a starter system or a major hub? It might mean nothing, might be controlled by Frontier to prevent that or it might have a whole bunch of negative impacts on others, which is why I focus the question of player ownership of anything (other than their ships) on it coming down to just how Frontier were to implement it, IF they implement it at all. For mine, the *potential* negatives outweigh the positives, so I'd rather avoid it altogether, at least until we have some firm concept or proposal from Frontier on how they may approach it. Right now it's only a potential that Frontier would implement it.....and besides, there's a bunch of stuff a darn sight higher in the priority list I should think, like landing on atmospheric planets, space legs, improvements to existing gameplay. IF we ever get base ownership, it should be a LONG way down the track given these other things to be addressed first.

 

[Avetorian]

but what about those groups who will coordinate and populate a system, or region, with 50, 100 or 500 bases, outposts, stations etc (subject to any maximum limit that might be applied of course per system)?.

Well you have to look at what exactly can be accomplished with these bases, and these players trying to swarm a system with bases, but evem if you have 50/100/500/500,000,000 you still won't have system control. It would be a small blip in the radar in the grand scheme of things. You have to look at what these bases DO and how they can be used. If you can't trade to them, or manufacture things, then the reason for putting these bases here would be pointless, and the players would be better served attacking a strategic location, but since there is now strategic element to attack there is no reason to control. So these players get A for effort, but I'd rather not grade the other aspects.

They can not stop you from interacting with the system, they can not stop you from coming and going, they can not stop you from sitting on their front lawn, because again we're not making these into defense platforms, We'd then have to go into types of bases and so on and so forth, so outside of storage, repair (Costing materials and whatever) and ship refitting. These players would be better served with just having one central location to base out of and try and exercise their limited ability to control an instance in a solar system.

You have to understand that to have these bases there needs to be a gameplay element surrounding them, and that does not have to be used for PVP only mechanics, there are a multitude of other examples of content one could use a base for provided said content can even exist. Even if your larger player gathering tried to control one planet. IT would be stupidly difficult to control an entire planet, again Ammonia based world, you at most would see a city of structures occupying a very small portion of planet, and to do what? Loiter open play to try and stop people coming or going in that system, out of 399,999,999,999 other ones? in the infinite amount of instances available to the point players in other modes could just come and go as they leave. It would be fruitless and a complete waste of time to do that, other then just for RP gains. There are too many ways to avoid griefing so let them continue to whine and cry all they want, why should that inhibit the rest of us from enjoying the content we are given?

What if that were to occur in a starter system or a major hub? It might mean nothing, might be controlled by Frontier to prevent that or it might have a whole bunch of negative impacts on others, which is why I focus the issue of how player ownership of anything (other than their ships) on it coming down to just how Frontier were to implement it, IF they implement it at all.

Again, why would you put a base in a starter hub instead of just using the bases their literally for the same purpose you might be suggesting. People are already camping Eravate and trying to kill new players, and other locations in the game with no consquences, this falls into the issue of crime and punishment. Second, why not just have the NPC destroy player bases if the player associated with them are using them for mal-content, how cool would it be to see a farragut battlecruiser warp in and obliterate someones base because they done effed up. Hilarious, and really dumb for any player to put their base in a system that has everything they need. I'm more for bases outside of human space, where they'd have a use for explorers, and people just wanting to play outside of the human bubble.

For mine, the *potential* negatives outweigh the positives, so I'd rather avoid it altogether, at least until we have some firm concept or proposal from Frontier on how they may approach it. Right now it's only a potential that Frontier would implement it.....and besides, there's a bunch of stuff a darn sight higher in the priority list I should think, like landing on atmospheric planets, space legs, improvements to existing gameplay. IF we ever get base ownership, it should be a LONG way down the track given these other things to be addressed first.

There are as many potential negatives as their are positives, it's all down to how these features are implemented and what owning a base actually grants the player for what specific content. I Said awhile back that I'd like to see ownership of bases on atmospheric worlds, so by that time I think it would make sense to have them. I agree there's no point in adding them right now, there needs to be purpose for them. Identifying their purpose, their function and the players ability to extend their influence is paramount to making this work right. It's all about the content surrounding the need to have them. I also said awhile back that we should see expanded content on the game over all, and having bases would be a fine purpose for giving things to interact with, IF you look at the DDF and previous news letter, FD mentions things like extra vehicular activity, submarines and so on. I think having your own little base for these things would be great.

The thing is people on this forum simply don't get the psychology behind player bases, and the like, some of you suggest that it will encourage griefing, but that is merely one aspect in which a base can be used, it's not the whole of the puzzle. There are more things to consider if you are one who is deploying these things, you need to consider the strategic value of the type of base you are using, the function it will serve you and where you will find a suitable location for it.The risk of exploration is higher than anything in this game, because you can put so much time into it, and lose everything you earned before you can collect payment, as we get the ability to fly inside gas giants, atmospheric worlds and ice and volcanic, extremely hostile environments, we will need tools to be able to deal with these things, as there is no recovery from the loss of exploration data, that goes beyond just "First discovery" or scanning planets.

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

You're all missing the obvious here.
Any and all of the percieved negatives can be and already are being achieved by simply owning a ship.
5, 50, 500, 5000, 50,000 ships in a system is already possible. They can all be easilly accomodated in current starports, or just pop in and out of the system, either wilfully or in a co-ordinated fashion, causing no end of havoc.
Heck I myself have inadvertantly altered the BGS in a system simply by trading 720 slaves to here and 720 meds to there for a couple of days in my tradecutter and I don't care about the BGS system.

Adding a player base to the mix is no different, except in that there simply wouldn't be any point in placing one in occupied space...

In many ways all the player base would really be is an advanced AFMU which could add a small amount of storage (maybe) and fix hulls and power plants. The trade off would be the maintenance costs. Fail to see to the upkeep and the base explodes.
I would rather the base because then I could have a picture of my grandkids on the wall.

o7

 

[kilvenny]

Cost should provide a limiter on how many bases a player or player faction could create and where they would want to place them. I actually think it would be advisable to limit the number that can be created on any planet or system, this would add a gameplay element if implemented correctly of having to locate build points and would increase their strategic importance particularly if build points were of different quality ie build here and the station can only have x elements, build there and you can have up to 10 elements. It's also actually very easy to lock this behind a paywall. ie as a DLC. eg Unable to build if you don't have the base building add on, or unable to find locations if you don't have the scanner.

I am not a great fan of making bases capable of destruction. Change of ownership/lockdown via BGS absolutely fine. I am also against the idea you can cash in your exploration data at these bases. At the moment the risk/reward is excellent. You go out and explore and the journey back is as dangerous as the one out. Arguably this is one aspect of the game that mirrors the original in difficulty.

 

[Avetorian]

Cost should provide a limiter on how many bases a player or player faction could create and where they would want to place them. I actually think it would be advisable to limit the number that can be created on any planet or system, this would add a gameplay element if implemented correctly of having to locate build points and would increase their strategic importance particularly if build points were of different quality ie build here and the station can only have x elements, build there and you can have up to 10 elements. It's also actually very easy to lock this behind a paywall. ie as a DLC. eg Unable to build if you don't have the base building add on, or unable to find locations if you don't have the scanner.

I am not a great fan of making bases capable of destruction. Change of ownership/lockdown via BGS absolutely fine. I am also against the idea you can cash in your exploration data at these bases. At the moment the risk/reward is excellent. You go out and explore and the journey back is as dangerous as the one out. Arguably this is one aspect of the game that mirrors the original in difficulty.

Pretty much, I am not suggestiong myself to cash in exploration data or even store it (you already have it stored on your ship) just more tools interact in more hostile environments, imagine what a volcanic world or gas giant might do your ship making some errors in your flight path? yipes, seriously dangerous for an explorer, there should be a way to repair and keep going if you can find the means and the resources where you're at.

 

[friendship drive charging]

Like many players I'd love to buy able to buy and build my own outposts and bases? I've often thought though how this might work, so thought I'd open a thread on it to see what your ideas are?

I think before you start there would be factors such as...

• Finding the right planet / moon, especially if you'll be setting up a mining colony or wanting to attract an Engineer
• Choosing the right system, where factors such as superpower, factions, overall stability etc. come into play, especially as you can't move the base afterwards
• Obtaining the necessary permits from controlling system powers

Then when you have your base or outpost set up there are plenty of other considerations...

• Do you need to stick around the area to defend it from attack?
• Can you employ guards / pilots (both NPC and player) to keep the place safe, and what restrictions would there be?
• How do you attract the right types of traders to build a profit on commodities?

• What other facilities might you be able to offer for pilots and visitors?
• What would the situation be regards takeovers, both political and military?

The more I think about player bases the more I want one, but this feature (if ever implemented) could end up being a full game in itself.

none of that

after space legs they should just sell off land in the agriculture areas etc in stations

rather than owning a station you own a farm or factory

 

[lenna]

Any and all of the percieved negatives can be and already are being achieved by simply owning a ship.

Not true... the instancing and multi-mode mechanics effectively bypass that one...

As soon as cross-instance player owned/controlled permanent features are added the proverbial can containing the proverbial worms would have been destroyed.

 

[Avetorian]

You're all missing the obvious here.
Any and all of the percieved negatives can be and already are being achieved by simply owning a ship.
5, 50, 500, 5000, 50,000 ships in a system is already possible. They can all be easilly accomodated in current starports, or just pop in and out of the system, either wilfully or in a co-ordinated fashion, causing no end of havoc.
Heck I myself have inadvertantly altered the BGS in a system simply by trading 720 slaves to here and 720 meds to there for a couple of days in my tradecutter and I don't care about the BGS system.

Adding a player base to the mix is no different, except in that there simply wouldn't be any point in placing one in occupied space...

In many ways all the player base would really be is an advanced AFMU which could add a small amount of storage (maybe) and fix hulls and power plants. The trade off would be the maintenance costs. Fail to see to the upkeep and the base explodes.
I would rather the base because then I could have a picture of my grandkids on the wall.

o7

Exactly, it would be counter productive and stupid for player groups who want to grief to put down a base to do what can already be done in the bubble. I like that terminology advanced AFMU, with maintenance costs, this is why I'd want one that I can put down and disassemble when I need to and keep going.