The case for player surface base-building

[Lateralus]

So this was something that was in the FDEV insider 'leak' we had several months before Odyssey launched - in many ways the leak got proven correct, even down to the project code names they were using internally. However base-building was also mentioned on that leak but never made it to the final release - perhaps cut due to timescale/resource constraints etc. I'd assume that lots of work was already done on this feature - hopefully it will get added to the game in the future still because it could potentially add quite a lot of depth to the game in the following ways:

• On foot surface gameplay would suddenly become about 1000x more interesting as players would finally be able to do something with planet surfaces than just mooch about shooting rocks.
• There would suddenly be a case for construction-focused SRV types which could be very interesting.
• Players would have a way of potentially passively generating commodities and materials (mining platforms, farms etc).
  • These resources could be shared with friends or allies depending on how they setup base access permissions (a bit like fleet carriers).
• Existing commodities could finally have a use other than be simply for buying/selling to make profit - food and other supplies could be used to keep a base operational. This would require supply runs - cargo ships suddenly become important again.
• Different base types could be used for different purposes (passive income, BGS/Powerplay influence, storage, exploration hub etc).
• Player structures and even communities would spring up all over the galaxy, resulting in interesting unscripted locations for other players to explore.
  • With this in mind, player bases that fall into a non-operational state could change into derelicts to be explored.
• Base raiding would/could become a thing - interesting PvP scenarios would result.
  • This would also result in a need for players to setup automated security systems and defences (like turrets and skimmers)
• Base owner squadron affiliation could be used as an additional vehicle for influence on BGS factions & Powerplay.
• Bases could also be used a way of introducing squadron vs squadron warfare.
• Player bases would also provide an alternate platform for players to own large personal storage facilities other than fleet carriers, which are hugely expensive to acquire and operate (build to a level your time allows).
• (long-shot) If on the off-chance we ever get atmospheric planet landing, think how much extra player engagement there would be with a feature like this..

As a long time player who has been lets say, a bit underwhelmed by Odyssey so far, a feature like this would definitely get me putting time back into the game as it would suddenly feel worth it again... there's only so much scripted/developer placed content that can interest you when you've been playing so long.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

However base-building was also mentioned on that leak but never made it to the final release - perhaps cut due to timescale/resource constraints etc. I'd assume that lots of work was already done on this feature

That or the leak just misunderstood some internal naming of a feature as being something it wasn't. That'd be pretty easy to do if the leaker was working somewhere else in the company - anyone familiar with the journal output knows how often the English localisation of Elite Dangerous doesn't line up with the also-seemingly-English internal names for things. You can imagine a hypothetical pre-2.1 leaker getting the wrong end of the stick and assuming Horizons would include cooking with all the talk about "recipes" [1].

Odyssey does have base-building, after all - how else would all those NPC surface bases get put together? - that doesn't mean there was ever any intent for players to be able to use that code to construct their own base layouts, or any work done in that direction.

[1] And now we have that sort of recipe in Odyssey and we still can't cook, so the people who believed that hypothetical leak would be even more inclined to think it must be "coming soon".

 

[Jmanis]

Please no...

• On foot surface gameplay would suddenly become about 1000x more interesting as players would finally be able to do something with planet surfaces than just mooch about shooting rocks.

How?

• There would suddenly be a case for construction-focused SRV types which could be very interesting.

Why?

• Players would have a way of potentially passively generating commodities and materials(mining platforms, farms etc).
  • These resources could be shared with friends or allies depending on how they setup base access permissions (a bit like fleet carriers).

Gross. No, last thing the game needs is accumulation of stuff offline.

• Existing commodities could finally have a use other than be simply for buying/selling to make profit - food and other supplies could be used to keep a base operational. This would require supply runs - cargo ships suddenly become important again.

(different) Commodities already have plenty of uses.

• Different base types could be used for different purposes (passive income, BGS/Powerplay influence, storage, exploration hub etc).

Players aren't part of factions, so no-go to BGS influence. Passive income, see two points before... storage and exploration; We have FCs already.

• Player structures and even communities would spring up all over the galaxy, resulting in interesting unscripted locationsfor other players to explore.
  • With this in mind, player bases that fall into a non-operational state could change into derelicts to be explored.

Gross. FCs already spam the galaxy, this would make things even worse.

• Base raidingwould/could become a thing - interesting PvP scenarios would result.
  • This would also result in a need for players to setup automated security systems and defences (like turrets and skimmers)

No it couldn't. Instancing kills that.

• Base owner squadron affiliation could be used as an additional vehicle for influence on BGS factions & Powerplay.

Players/Squadrons aren't part of or control factions.

• Bases could also be used a way of introducing squadron vs squadron warfare.

That already happens enough on it's own. And again, instancing.

• Player bases would also provide an alternate platform for players to own large personal storage facilities other than fleet carriers, which are hugely expensive to acquire and operate (build to a level your time allows).

So pretend they're a thing, why shouldn't bases be equally expensive to acquire. I'd argue they should be more expensive

• (long-shot) If on the off-chance we ever get atmospheric planet landing, think how much extra player engagement there would be with a feature like this..

I'd still be in solo.

As a long time player who has been lets say, a bit underwhelmed by Odyssey so far, a feature like this would definitely get me putting time back into the game as it would suddenly feel worth it again... there's only so much scripted/developer placed content that can interest you when you've been playing so long.

I couldn't run fast enough from this.

 

[CMDR-AD]

My friend and I were out exploring and ran across a surface resort outpost. He wondered aloud why we could not build/own cool stuff like that, it's all already in the game. All we need is to buy and place it.

I've got to say, there are far, far more surface structure assets in Odyssey than I would have ever imagined.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So pretend they're a thing, why shouldn't bases be equally expensive to acquire. I'd argue they should be more expensive

Looking at the original proposal, you can't move them, their upkeep requirement is considerably more hassle, other players can blow them up, and if they're Odyssey-style bases you can't store ships or equipment there except docking your current active ship on a pad. That seems enough disadvantages to make them cost less than an FC.

The other side of that question, though, is why not just add most of these as FC capabilities? A FC could have a refinery module added where if you supplied it with 10t of Bertrandite and 2t of Advanced Catalysers would give you 8t of Beryllium ... or an industrial module where if you gave it 1t of Gallium, 4t of Titanium and 2t of Computer Components it would give you 4t of Domestic Appliances in return ... or even a ship-building module where if you gave it 50t of Scrap you'd get an Eagle. It wouldn't often be useful outside of RP, but if playing space-factory is what people want to do, an extra FC module seems like it would be much easier to implement than developing an entire surface construction process.

 

[Jack Winter]

That or the leak just misunderstood some internal naming of a feature as being something it wasn't. That'd be pretty easy to do if the leaker was working somewhere else in the company - anyone familiar with the journal output knows how often the English localisation of Elite Dangerous doesn't line up with the also-seemingly-English internal names for things. You can imagine a hypothetical pre-2.1 leaker getting the wrong end of the stick and assuming Horizons would include cooking with all the talk about "recipes" [1].

Odyssey does have base-building, after all - how else would all those NPC surface bases get put together? - that doesn't mean there was ever any intent for players to be able to use that code to construct their own base layouts, or any work done in that direction.

[1] And now we have that sort of recipe in Odyssey and we still can't cook, so the people who believed that hypothetical leak would be even more inclined to think it must be "coming soon".

But we do have building schematics that are useless at the moment.

 

[Jack Winter]

Looking at the original proposal, you can't move them, their upkeep requirement is considerably more hassle, other players can blow them up, and if they're Odyssey-style bases you can't store ships or equipment there except docking your current active ship on a pad. That seems enough disadvantages to make them cost less than an FC.

It would be cool if we could take off into the black and start an agricultural base, once that is up and running bring more resources and add extraction, refinery, military, etc. Like that we would start getting getting populated systems far into the black and who knows maybe under a PMF and some squadrons they could even expand into mini bubbles. Still sounds very much like a dreams.txt..

 

[BL1P]

Looking at the original proposal, you can't move them, their upkeep requirement is considerably more hassle, other players can blow them up, and if they're Odyssey-style bases you can't store ships or equipment there except docking your current active ship on a pad. That seems enough disadvantages to make them cost less than an FC.

The other side of that question, though, is why not just add most of these as FC capabilities? A FC could have a refinery module added where if you supplied it with 10t of Bertrandite and 2t of Advanced Catalysers would give you 8t of Beryllium ... or an industrial module where if you gave it 1t of Gallium, 4t of Titanium and 2t of Computer Components it would give you 4t of Domestic Appliances in return ... or even a ship-building module where if you gave it 50t of Scrap you'd get an Eagle. It wouldn't often be useful outside of RP, but if playing space-factory is what people want to do, an extra FC module seems like it would be much easier to implement than developing an entire surface construction process.

A working functional ecconomy that has a production outcome .....
What do you think this is X4 ?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

A working functional ecconomy

Well, I wouldn't go that far - in >99% of cases it'd be an incredibly slow and inefficient way of obtaining the end product.

But we do have building schematics that are useless at the moment.

That's true, but there are so many useless Odyssey goods and data types at the moment that they could spend the next century adding expansions themed around them and still not run out. Wouldn't assume they'd do building schematics first...

 

[Mark Zero]

Sometimes I wonder about how fixated folks get about things like base building. Like it's this thing on the default feature list for open world video games that everyone just expects. A box that needs to be checked off because reasons.

Personally I find that base building tends to slow down/mar the experience for me in most games I encounter it in. The Forest is supposed to be a horror game but hang on, gotta build a Gazebo. No Man's Sky is a game about exploring a vast and colorful galaxy and hang on gotta faff around on this planet for three hours while I build a goofy wooden space hut and set up production lines. Valheim is an epic viking adventure where nevermind I need to cut down six dozen trees to build a house.

Not every game needs player housing. Not every game needs systems of building stuff. Not every game needs to make players scratch out their patch of land. And since Elite is fundamentally a game about the freedom of space flight, tying you down to a planet is just about the worst thing to do to the original concept we all bought into.

Now, all of that said? I can see the other side. Building outposts could open up some really good gameplay opportunities. It could give purpose to a lot of mundane materials that traders would usually not find profitable. It could expand the bubble or create micro-bubbles in an interesting and dynamic way. Keeping those outposts supplied could make for engaging trade gameplay in BGS or PP. There's potential. It's just very easy for that potential to detract from the rest of the game.

I think if systems allowing players to create new outposts were implemented into the game in a way that fits with the core concept of "pilots flying spaceships in space", and can be engaged with either via on-foot content (like some kind of construction aspect, or other on-foot gameplay that's less focused on shooting), or via ship-based gameplay loops (trade, mining, etc), it could be a healthy thing for the game. But they gotta do it right. Otherwise, that same complaint of "Odyssey is just a bolted-on FPS" is going to apply to the feeling of a bolted-on base building system.

Edit: Most importantly? Any addition of settlement creation/base building needs to be a feature that can be completely and utterly ignored by the people who don't want to engage with it.

 

[Northpin]

Carriers seem to be a good compromise of "base" and "mobility"

So, instead of planetary base building, i'd rather see carriers developing

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It work in Space Engineers. Kinda. It's not very MP friendly. And doing that on a Massive MP environment is yet another problem of its own. Yet here we are again with somone pretending that making an entirely different game and incorporate that into an existing one is a cakewalk.

 

[Jack Winter]

I'm very happy with my carrier as a mobile home!

On the other hand I think populating systems out in the black could be a great addition to the game, especially if things go bad and most of the bubble is destroyed.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I'm very happy with my carrier as a mobile home!

On the other hand I think populating systems out in the black could be a great addition to the game, especially if things go bad and most of the bubble is destroyed.

Base building doesnt populate anything. You have the active players there are and there isnt enough to make this game world alive "in zhe black"

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The biggest case against player bases at the moment from my point of view is mainly I'd rather FD deal with other stuff first, like full atmospheric planets and more flora and fauna.

Priorities are different for all of us of course.

However, regarding one point you made:

• Base raidingwould/could become a thing - interesting PvP scenarios would result.
  • This would also result in a need for players to setup automated security systems and defences (like turrets and skimmers)

Nah. You're off in dreamland with that one. Not only does the game not really support that sort of thing due to instancing and modes, you also have timezones. I've see a lot of this sort of dreamcrafting from Star Citizen backers. How they dream of having bases that they can build up but need to protect, but they really don't think about it deeply enough. At least in ED you could build somewhere remote and hope the griefers don't bother it, but in SC the playable area is relatively small, and once a base is found, it would be open season. What they going to do? Have players logged in 24-7 to protect the base? Doing nothing else but just sitting there, waiting just in case someone decides to attack? That's pretty boring "gameplay".

You mention setting up automated defenses. Well, you see, either this means the defenses could defend against a group of players attacking or not. If it can, say like station defenses and the base is tough as nails, then its not going to create any sort of fun gameplay, its just going to be a deathtrap. But if it is beatable, then you can be sure the gankers will find a way to make it happen, and then what? Is there any sort of consequece for someone sucessfully attacking your base? Does it get destroyed? That would suck, especially if it happened when you were not even there to defend it (and it would still suck if you were there to defend it, but see my point about sitting there waiting to defend a base sucking). But if the base isn't destroyable, then what's the point? Damage that you need to repair? What's the cost to repair? Will you then have to repair it every day you log back in because they griefers keep hitting it every day?

You also bring up passive generation of stuff, which i also don't like, unless its really a token amount (but then people will complain FD haven't made it enough). I'm as against passive generation as i am of passive loss (eg: Fleet Carrier offline upkeep).

And ultimately, why do you need a non-mobile base when you can have a mobile base (eg: Fleet Carriers)?

 

[Jack Winter]

Base building doesnt populate anything. You have the active players there are and there isnt enough to make this game world alive "in zhe black"

Always with the negative waves Moriarty!

 

[Dillon Fallon]

And ultimately, why do you need a non-mobile base when you can have a mobile base (eg: Fleet Carriers)?

That's where player owned planetary bases falls apart for me. Fleet carriers are upgradeable, they carry all my stuff, they give me advantages over not having one, they're customisable (although more options here would not receive any complaints over here- especially interior paint options) and give you that feeling of having a home. All that with the advantage I can be 500ly away in 15 minutes if I get fed up of the view.

Can't see why I'd ever want my own ground base in the face of that.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

I must admit I quite like the idea, something similar to the game Planetbase, where you have to manage the base as well as expand it. It could be a considered like a stationary fleet carrier with a facility for a single economy type. Player groups could set up a nest of bases, each of their economies supporting the other.

I'm not sure of the Pvp aspect though, that could cause more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Arindor]

Bases would have to have similar maintenance and services mechanics as carriers. Otherwise chaos imo.

 

[varonica]

What they going to do? Have players logged in 24-7 to protect the base? Doing nothing else but just sitting there, waiting just in case someone decides to attack? That's pretty boring "gameplay".

I mean seriously let's face it, it wouldn't be players sitting there doing nothing 24-7 in case someone attacks, in both SC and ED the discovery of a destructible player owned base would lead to a continuous 24 hour attack until the base is destroyed, that's the reason why orbitals, ground facilities and Feet Carriers aren't destructible, every single ganker, PvP'er and other mischief maker would flock to the location in Fleet Carriers and other ships and just pummel it endlessly until it was gone.

Not just that, but instancing, once an instance was filled with attackers they would be put into new instances, and more new instances, possibly hundreds of separate instances, and solo players, and PG's where the defenders simply couldn't do anything, I would give any new player discovered destructible base hours at most, and maybe minutes depending where it was, before it was just a memory!