Impose A Limit To Tier 1 Outposts In Systems (Outpost Griefing)

[ZULU OSCAR OSCAR LIMA]

So, Outpost Grieing...

What is it?
When a Player or Group setup Outposts in a Line, or Chain, just to get to a System that they actually want.

When does this occur?
Usually, when a Player decides that they want a specific System, due to its characteristics.
This can be due to the presence of an Earth-Like World, or due to the number of Building Sites in a System.

Why is this a Problem?
For me personally, this is an issue because it means that my Large Ships don't have anywhere to Land.
I, like many other Players, just want to Refuel at a Station, maybe sell some Cartographic Data, and keep moving.

.

OK, so how do we fix this Issue?

Suggestion 1:
Impose a Limit to the Number of Systems a Player can have, that ONLY have an Outpost.
A Reasonable Number would be somewhere between 5-10 Systems.
At least by doing this, in this way, it means any one specific Player can only do it once, unless they go back, and Develop their Systems later.
Exemptions: A System that at least has a Large Landing Pad Location in it, either as a Land Based Location, OR Space Station would be exempt.
Since a Tier 2, and especially, a Tier 3, can both provide a Place for Large Ships to Land, these are not a problem, these don't cause any Grief to anyone.

Suggestion 2:
Place the ability to Build / Upgrade Outposts to have Large Pads on them.
An Outpost could have 2, 3, or 4 Large Pads, the point is, they would at least have Large Pads, even if they are Few in Number.
IF ALL Outposts were just Upgraded over a Maintenance Update Period, the Issue of Griefer Outposts would be Eliminated over night.
IF Outpost Options were made available, something to Provide a Large Pad, something that wasn't as costly as a Dedicated Coriolis, that would be something.
A Large Outpost, with appropriate Landing Pads, but for around half of the Cost of a Coriolis, that would be great.
It wouldn't fix the issue entirely like this, but it would make things better, as some Players would be responsible enough to at least Build them if they had the Option.

Suggestion 3:
Make Tier 2 and Tier 3 Space Stations less Troublesome to Build, or add some sort of additional Reward for Building them.
The main reason that Players build Outposts is because they are Quick to Build, really Quick.
I know that I can build a Tier 2 Coriolis in around a Week, on my own.
Just recently, I built a Tier 2 Coriolis, with a bit of assistance, in only 4 Days.
However, most Players are not me, and don't want to spend this sort of time on a Coriolis, especially if they are not going to Benefit massively from it.
Currently, Players are rewarded for Building a bunch of Outposts, and then 'Base Crawling' to the Systems they actually want.
If Players had more incentive to Building the Higher Tier Space Stations, then more Players would.
Again, this isn't the most effective way to address the Problem, but it would help.
Making the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Space Stations easier to Build, would also help.

Suggestion 4:
NPC Hiring, being able to Hire NPC's from Systems that you already have Architect Status with.
The idea is that you still impose a Limit on this, maybe the NPC's can only Progress 50% to a System that you're trying to Colonise.
In return, they take a Massive Chunk of Credits out of you.
This might not be a Great idea, as it may introduce a different problem.
However, if a Player has a Well Built Out System, and they could then use that System to help Build a new System, that would add incentive.
Instead of Thousands of Outpost ONLY Systems, we'd get better Quality Systems, and fewer Outpost Only Systems.
You'd add a Limitation, a Player would only be able to 'Hire' NPC's once per 90-180 Days or something.
Additional Limitations could include Limiting the NPC's to only a set few Resources, selected by the Player.
Also, any NPC's that were Hired would only be able to Carry what was actually Available in the Market of the System they came from.
None of this, NPC picking up 700 CMM Composite, if the System they came from doesn't even produce CMM Composite, or there is a Shortage.

Suggestion 5:
Prompt Players to place Construction Sites in a System they have Successfully Colonised.
I don't think many Players know this, but, once you have Completed the initial System Colonisation Stage, there are no more Timers.
You can then deploy Construction Beacons in a System, and there will be no Timers on those.
This means that if you are Outpost Jumping (Base Crawling) and just don't have time for the Systems in your Wake, other Players can Build them out for you.
I actually intend to do this as I Base Crawl to a System that I have my eye on, placing enough Construction Projects in my wake to then build out some Space Stations in each System.
Effectively, this would add a more Community Focussed Element to the Game.

Suggestion 6:
Add a Penalty to Outpost Jumpers (Base Crawlers).
The more Systems that a Player owns that ONLY have Outposts in them, the more Credits and other Resources it will cost for those Players to Build more Systems.
Unfortunately, the worst people for doing this have Billions of Credits, and may even own Fleet Carriers.
That said, it would make Players think about what they are Building.
These Outpost Only Systems still require things in order to run, but they can't run effectively if there is nothing backing them up.
This in turn would become more of an issue, the more times it happens.
As such, this should be reflected in Players who do it.

Suggestion 7:
System Satisfaction Rating.
Now, I'm not entirely sure how this is working as of yet, but this could be used to Impose a Limit.
Making it so that Outpost ONLY Systems generated Negative Points, would allow a means of Tracking them.
IF a Player owns too many Systems who's Satisfaction Ratings fall into the Negatives, they are Prevented from Developing New Systems.
IF that Player then goes back, fixes the Systems that they've neglected, and resolves the Satisfaction Ratings in those Systems, then System Development is restored.
I currently have ONE System with 0 Satisfaction Rating on the Last Report.
I've added something to it that should help (I hope), so upon the Next Report, that should be resolved.
That System has a Tier 2 Coriolis in it, so that could be the Baseline.
Let's assume that it Generates 0 Satisfaction, and as such, would not be able to Generate Negative Values.
This would then mean, I would still be able to Build Systems as I see fit.
How this would look:

• Tier 1 Outpost ONLY Systems, Generate -5 Satisfaction
• Tier 2 Coriolis ONLY Systems Generate 0 Satisfaction
• Tier 3 Ocellus/Orbis ONLY Systems Generate +5 Satisfaction

This is obviously just an Example.

.

I would prefer Suggestion 1 out of that list, personally.
However, I thought that I would present multiple Ideas that I had on how to address the issue.
I know this Thread is a bit Long, sorry about that.
If you did read everything, then, thank you for your patience.

 

[PilotB]

You have a strange definition of greifing. You're no more inconvenienced by the outposts than you were when they were empty systems. You can even see from the galmap by population if the system has a coriolis or not. It's not greifing.

None of those solutions are good. You just want to punish people for not using bad systems because from time to time one is OK while they're trying to get somewhere good.

Outpost chains exist because there's an arbitrary limitation on range. The solution is to simply let people colonise the systems they actually want which may come after beta. As long as the players making the colony chains get their next colony they're not going to care in the slightest if most of the in between systems were removed and building out systems along the chain is obnoxious so really not worth the effort because someone's offended at the idea of a single outpost in deep space. Limitations of the current system force adaptation. Fix the limitations causing the behaviour.

 

[K Olley]

So, Outpost Grieing...

What is it?
When a Player or Group setup Outposts in a Line, or Chain, just to get to a System that they actually want.

When does this occur?
Usually, when a Player decides that they want a specific System, due to its characteristics.
This can be due to the presence of an Earth-Like World, or due to the number of Building Sites in a System.

Why is this a Problem?
For me personally, this is an issue because it means that my Large Ships don't have anywhere to Land.
I, like many other Players, just want to Refuel at a Station, maybe sell some Cartographic Data, and keep moving.

.

OK, so how do we fix this Issue?

Fit a fuel scoop.

Park a carrier in a convenient system and use it to refuel.

Build a T2 or T3 in a system alongside the chain.

Why are you trying to build so far out with a ship that is not built to survive in the black?

 

[ZULU OSCAR OSCAR LIMA]

You have a strange definition of greifing. You're no more inconvenienced by the outposts than you were when they were empty systems. You can even see from the galmap by population if the system has a coriolis or not. It's not greifing.

None of those solutions are good. You just want to punish people for not using bad systems because from time to time one is OK while they're trying to get somewhere good.

Outpost chains exist because there's an arbitrary limitation on range. The solution is to simply let people colonise the systems they actually want which may come after beta. As long as the players making the colony chains get their next colony they're not going to care in the slightest if most of the in between systems were removed and building out systems along the chain is obnoxious so really not worth the effort because someone's offended at the idea of a single outpost in deep space. Limitations of the current system force adaptation. Fix the limitations causing the behaviour.

I'm seeing Hundreds of Wasted Systems though.
I do mean Hundreds, of what would actually be Good Systems.
Systems with 20, 30, or even 50 Planetary Bodies in them, with Good Resource Counts, and Plenty of places to Build.
Some of them have really Good spots in them, and yet, I see them going to Waste just because some Player wants to be a Toxic Pest.

Daisey Chaining 5, 6, or even 7 Systems might be normal, and once might be able to excuse that to an extent.
However, when you start seeing Chains of 20, or 30 Systems, each with some random Outpost, doing nobody any good...
That's where you see the issues arise.

Here is an EXTREME Example, but I think someone's in the process of doing it:
So, the Player I think is doing it, I'd assume he's on Day 50 by this point, based on my own Estimated Speed.
A Location, 5,000 LY away, has a BUCKET load of Planets in it, Including an Earth-Like.
At first Glance, it's an amazing Location, with few draw-backs.
Let's assume that I was to Daisy Chain 500 Outposts just because I wanted that Location.
Around 500 Days later, I'd be placing my Flag down at that System.
Yes, me, a SOLO Player.
You'd say that wasn't Griefing?

While yes, I understand that it's annoying to have a 15 LY Limitation for Colonisation, there is a reason that it's there.
It's to prevent the Empty Space Issue, and to give everyone Fair Chance.
I do think that they should make it so that Longer Colonisation Jumps cost substantially more, while Increasing the Range of Colonisation Ships.
If I want to make a Colony that is 25 LY away from where I'm at, I should be able to, at the cost of Increased Resources needed for that.
Equally, I feel that I should be properly rewarded for Shorter Colony Jumps.

The issue is with how many Outposts there are.
Particularly, those Players who are Outpost Jumping in Chains of well over 20 Outpost ONLY Systems.
The worst I've seen so far appears to be a Chain of 50, and it's only been slowed down because he can't get enough Tritium for his Fleet Carrier.

 

[ZULU OSCAR OSCAR LIMA]

Fit a fuel scoop.

Park a carrier in a convenient system and use it to refuel.

Build a T2 or T3 in a system alongside the chain.

Why are you trying to build so far out with a ship that is not built to survive in the black?

In reality, this wouldn't be even remotely sustainable.
That's part of why it's an issue.
Also, if I could resolve it simply by Building Parallel, then I'd consider it, but many of these are already Parallel.
There is one area where 70 Systems are in a concentrated bubble, and not a single Coriolis in sight...

 

[thistle]

You're no more inconvenienced by the outposts than you were when they were empty systems.

Exactly.

 

[ZULU OSCAR OSCAR LIMA]

Exactly.

No, not exactly.

Something else that you are all conveniently ignoring is the fact that is then starts forcing ALL Systems to be Independent and usually Unstable Systems.
It prevents me, and many other Players who actually give a damn, from Building the Systems we actually want.
If I want a Federation OR Imperial System, I have to hope that I can find a complete Route for me to Build what I actually want.
If there are too many Independent Systems in the way, it prevents me from seeing through my intended plans.

I could hope that the Developers make it possible for Players to select Federation / Imperial Ambassadors to be in a System.
I could hope that they make it possible for Players who have Architect Status to override what a System's Political Faction is.
For example, I want only Federation and Imperial Stations, if I could find/make somewhere with both in one System, that would be great.

 

[tomalus]

I wish I could permit my systems and add the OP to the list, prohibiting him entry.
And all the line people could do the same. So he doesnt have to endure our "griefing"

 

[Desirsar]

Ties into something I've said in other threads.

Accounts should have to log in, all the way to sitting in a ship, at least once a year, or the systems can be reclaimed.

Accounts should be able to transfer control of a system. On deployment in real life over a year? Hand off your systems to a squadron mate before you go. Also allows anyone to contact the owner of a system they grabbed only to daisy chain and ask if they'd give up the system.

 

[tomalus]

What a stupid idea.
Thank god Fdev is smart, and will never enable this.
Because it opens pandora box of vulnerabilities for hacks,scams and botfarms

 

[Desirsar]

It's at least realistic compared to the zero chance they'll ever allow players permit control over systems or control docking access to stations.

I'd be open to hearing what sort of scam someone could pull off with the ability to transfer systems that you couldn't already do by contracting out yourself or a squadron to deliver materials to colonies.

 

[K Olley]

Something else that you are all conveniently ignoring is the fact that is then starts forcing ALL Systems to be Independent and usually Unstable Systems.
It prevents me, and many other Players who actually give a damn, from Building the Systems we actually want.
If I want a Federation OR Imperial System, I have to hope that I can find a complete Route for me to Build what I actually want.
If there are too many Independent Systems in the way, it prevents me from seeing through my intended plans.

So it looks as if I am fence sitting on this one, starting to build a system 60ly from a T2 with an independent T3 off the side of a minor chain

 

[Ian Doncaster]

If I want a Federation OR Imperial System, I have to hope that I can find a complete Route for me to Build what I actually want.

Set your squadron to a Federal or Imperial faction, claim the system, the squadron-aligned faction appears in 3rd place, use normal BGS manipulation to put the Federal/Imperial faction in charge. Now it's a Federal or Imperial system, which you could use to create ones starting with Fed/Imp control (and bring a second Fed/Imp faction into by changing your squadron allegiance, if you want). By the third or fourth jump away from the existing territory you should be able to have only your chosen Fed/Imp factions in the systems, plus whatever Anarchy faction happened to be nearby (and you could probably shake that off if you can add one of the rare Fed/Imp anarchy factions, too)

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

Set your squadron to a Federal or Imperial faction, claim the system, the squadron-aligned faction appears in 3rd place, use normal BGS manipulation to put the Federal/Imperial faction in charge. Now it's a Federal or Imperial system, which you could use to create ones starting with Fed/Imp control (and bring a second Fed/Imp faction into by changing your squadron allegiance, if you want). By the third or fourth jump away from the existing territory you should be able to have only your chosen Fed/Imp factions in the systems, plus whatever Anarchy faction happened to be nearby (and you could probably shake that off if you can add one of the rare Fed/Imp anarchy factions, too)

You don't need to manipulate the BGS. Just keep building ports until one gets assigned to the faction you want to expand, then use the system colonisation contact from that station to make a new claim.

 

[ZULU OSCAR OSCAR LIMA]

Ties into something I've said in other threads.

Accounts should have to log in, all the way to sitting in a ship, at least once a year, or the systems can be reclaimed.

Accounts should be able to transfer control of a system. On deployment in real life over a year? Hand off your systems to a squadron mate before you go. Also allows anyone to contact the owner of a system they grabbed only to daisy chain and ask if they'd give up the system.

System Control Transfer could work, but I fear it would be abused too much.
Though, it gives me another idea.

Potential Solution number 8:
Outpost ONLY Systems lose their Outposts entirely after a set time, allowing someone else more responsible to claim them.
Alternatively, allowing for an Outpost ONLY System to become NPC Controlled at the switch of a Toggle, or after a set amount of time.
The Player who built the Outpost ONLY System could then let the AI place Construction Beacons at random maybe?
I'd much prefer an Empty System, because it would allow me to then outfit it properly.

Solution 9:
If a System is Built Better, then the Colonisation Bubble gets Bigger, allowing for a Player to make a New Colony further away.
Outpost ONLY, you can only establish another Colony 5 LY away.
Tier 2 Coriolis, you can Build 15 LY away.
Tier 3 Ocellus / Orbis, you can Build 25 LY away.
Properly Built up System with 10 Slots Built fully, apply a 50% Range Boost based on if the Player has built a Tier 1, 2, or 3 in the System.
ALL Slots Filled, Apply an additional 50% Range Boost on top of that.

 

[ZULU OSCAR OSCAR LIMA]

Set your squadron to a Federal or Imperial faction, claim the system, the squadron-aligned faction appears in 3rd place, use normal BGS manipulation to put the Federal/Imperial faction in charge. Now it's a Federal or Imperial system, which you could use to create ones starting with Fed/Imp control (and bring a second Fed/Imp faction into by changing your squadron allegiance, if you want). By the third or fourth jump away from the existing territory you should be able to have only your chosen Fed/Imp factions in the systems, plus whatever Anarchy faction happened to be nearby (and you could probably shake that off if you can add one of the rare Fed/Imp anarchy factions, too)

Could you explain this one please.
Note, I don't have a Squadron, and don't know much about the Squadron Feature.

If there is any way that I can convert a System to be a specific desired Faction, then I'd like to know.

 

[Greasetrap42]

I'm getting confused by your thoughts. They seam quite scattered.

Why is this a Problem?
For me personally, this is an issue because it means that my Large Ships don't have anywhere to Land.
I, like many other Players, just want to Refuel at a Station, maybe sell some Cartographic Data, and keep moving.

Ok, your original point.

a) Where did you sell your cartographic data before colonization?
b) I have traveled all across the galaxy to the far edges in a variety of ships. All well before colonisation. I never needed refueling stations.
c) I have done huge amounts of cargo transport over the years. Usually I try to never stop and refuel at a station. Why would I want to waste time refueling at a station? Fuel scooping with a small undersized fuel scoop is much faster than detouring to a station to refuel.

I'm seeing Hundreds of Wasted Systems though.
I do mean Hundreds, of what would actually be Good Systems.

Ok, but this wasn't in your OP. This is an entirely different complaint.

a) The colony chains travel outward. If you visit the surrounding systems I am quite certain you will see good systems an order of magnitude higher in numbers.
b) Big long colony chains expose vast new opportunities for system claims.
c) So who cares.

A Location, 5,000 LY away, has a BUCKET load of Planets in it, Including an Earth-Like.
At first Glance, it's an amazing Location, with few draw-backs.
Let's assume that I was to Daisy Chain 500 Outposts just because I wanted that Location.
Around 500 Days later, I'd be placing my Flag down at that System.
Yes, me, a SOLO Player.
You'd say that wasn't Griefing?

A new complaint, not really related but okay,

a) No that is certainly not griefing. Someone simply got there first.
b) I don't think you know what griefing means.

I could hope that the Developers make it possible for Players to select Federation / Imperial Ambassadors to be in a System.
I could hope that they make it possible for Players who have Architect Status to override what a System's Political Faction is.
For example, I want only Federation and Imperial Stations, if I could find/make somewhere with both in one System, that would be great.

This sounds like a completely unrelated item.
I do like the idea of the architect being able to solicit desired factions to locate to the new system.
The OP should have broken this idea into a different thread altogether.

If I want a Federation OR Imperial System, I have to hope that I can find a complete Route for me to Build what I actually want.
If there are too many Independent Systems in the way, it prevents me from seeing through my intended plans.

I don't see how this is an issue. Make whatever route to your desired location you want.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Could you explain this one please.
Note, I don't have a Squadron, and don't know much about the Squadron Feature.

If there is any way that I can convert a System to be a specific desired Faction, then I'd like to know.

Step 1: get up to Allied reputation with any factions you want to put in charge of a new system (if you just want "some sort of Federal faction" you probably already have this)
Step 2: create a squadron for 10 million credits (with just you in it, doesn't need more)
Step 3: each squadron can support a faction, so select one of your allied factions
Step 4: colonise a new system. Your squadron's faction will be added to the system in 3rd place in influence. There is no distance limit on this.
Step 5: support [1] your chosen faction until it equalises influence with the existing system controller, to start a war or election
Step 6: win the war (combat zones) or election (missions)
Your faction now runs the system

Once you've done this once, you can repeat step 3 to pick a different faction you like, then colonise a system from the contact in your first system. That gets you both factions added to the second system.

[1] The easiest ways to do this are missions (just for your chosen faction) and bounty hunting (bounty hunt in a system it already controls, hand the bounties in to the system you want to affect, do not hand in bounties for anyone else). It'll probably take a while if you've not done it before, and it's best not to build the system up any more than you have to (because this step is a lot easier while the population is small) until your chosen faction is in charge.

 

[Danieros]

If the tendril of outposts lacking any large pad is a problem for you, please help the community by colonizing a nearby system and building a large station to fill this service demand.

Restricting the pace of colonization because of this would just slow everything down. The location you would be going instead of being limited to outposts would be limited to nothing.

 

[ZULU OSCAR OSCAR LIMA]

I'm getting confused by your thoughts. They seam quite scattered.


Ok, your original point.

a) Where did you sell your cartographic data before colonization?
b) I have traveled all across the galaxy to the far edges in a variety of ships. All well before colonisation. I never needed refueling stations.
c) I have done huge amounts of cargo transport over the years. Usually I try to never stop and refuel at a station. Why would I want to waste time refueling at a station? Fuel scooping with a small undersized fuel scoop is much faster than detouring to a station to refuel.


Ok, but this wasn't in your OP. This is an entirely different complaint.

a) The colony chains travel outward. If you visit the surrounding systems I am quite certain you will see good systems an order of magnitude higher in numbers.
b) Big long colony chains expose vast new opportunities for system claims.
c) So who cares.


A new complaint, not really related but okay,

a) No that is certainly not griefing. Someone simply got there first.
b) I don't think you know what griefing means.


This sounds like a completely unrelated item.
I do like the idea of the architect being able to solicit desired factions to locate to the new system.
The OP should have broken this idea into a different thread altogether.


I don't see how this is an issue. Make whatever route to your desired location you want.

So, to answer all of this...

Where did I sell Cartography Data before?
I haven't been on the Game for a long time, and before, I was just in the Training Mode trying to see what worked.
I was busy sorting out Connection Issues, and my HOTAS Config, then I had my Computer get Hacked, and was Offline for a long time.
So, having got back, I started actually playing the Game properly on my own Account instead of at someone else's house trying things out on theirs.
When I was trying out HOTAS Systems on their Systems before, I'd simply turn in Cartography Data at... Oh, any Populated System with a Coriolis.
I didn't previously have any problems turning in Cartography Data, because all Populated Systems had somewhere for me to do this.
Now however, just because a System, or Cluster of Systems are all Populated, doesn't mean I can turn in Cartographic Data.
I sometimes need to spend hours either looking for somewhere where I can, OR, quicker, just Jump the extra 300 LY to somewhere that I know for a Fact that I can.

You travelled everywhere, blah blah...
OK, so, Travelling Deep Space, you expect to need your Fuel Scoop.
However, in what looks like Heavily Populated Space (every System in every Direction has an assigned Faction), you don't expect to need it.
I'm going around in my Type-9 Transporter Ship, so this means I focused on maximising as much as I could to Cargo Space.
However, some of what I need in terms of Resources for a Colony I'm building, need me to Jump further than what my Fuel Capacity will allow.
In theory, I'm in Populated Space, right in the thick of it, nowhere near the outskirts, but...
Because of these False Flags (what else to call them), I still need to waste Space on my Ship with a Fuel Scoop.
Just because somebody thought that it would be funny to Flood Space with Outposts where I can't land.

Who cares?
Some of us care about how Systems are constructed.
For all we know, some Update might come along and punish the Carelessness of building nothing but Outposts.
The people who'll suffer for it are going to be those who can't properly support their Systems because they couldn't get the resources out there in the first place to build them.

Someone got there first...
Except, they didn't.
What bothers me is not the fact they wanted a Specific Star System, what bothers me is that the way they went about it.
They want a Specific Star System, let them go for it, but they should at least place down Construction Beacons for other other Players to Build the other Systems out.
I myself will likely need to build a few Systems with Outposts just to get somewhere.
However, I'm not going to be Toxic about it.
I'm not just going to place an Outpost and then forget about that System, never to build anything there again.
I'm going to place Construction Beacons down in those Systems, and build them out as I go.
I'm going to eventually get around to placing Tier 2 and Tier 3 Space Stations in those Systems.
That means, 6 Tier 1 Items, and then, Ta-Da, a Tier 2 Construction site.
It doesn't take much to do that, even if I couldn't be bothered to Build the Systems myself, at least having the Construction Sites present would allow others to Build them.
In effect, even if I didn't do any Building myself, it would give other Players the ability to Build them out, and thus, they would benefit long-term.
It's certainly better than ignoring the Systems all together.