Fleet carriers are a totally different path of gameplay, they are for players to move their assets about quickly and open up private economies. Bases would be about passive yield, squadron/faction/power influence and tactical combat gameplay. Nearly every other comparable game offers it or is a planned feature.
The case for player surface base-building
- Thread starter Lateralus
- Start date
Fleet carriers are a totally different path of gameplay, they are for players to move their assets about quickly and open up private economies. Bases would be about passive yield, squadron/faction/power influence and tactical combat gameplay. Nearly every other comparable game offers it or is a planned feature.
I would love this gameplay aspect, however it should really be more than placing down buildings hand having to pay upkeep for them. Your suggestions are good and should be the minimum for this feature to exist at all.
As for the leaks - there is still on foot loot in the settlements which currently has no use (to my knowledge). That is: building-schematics. This and the fact that the website originally listed building livery as well iirc.
So maybe there is something there, that has yet to be finished / implemented.
As for the leaks - there is still on foot loot in the settlements which currently has no use (to my knowledge). That is: building-schematics. This and the fact that the website originally listed building livery as well iirc.
So maybe there is something there, that has yet to be finished / implemented.
Yes, my suggestions are a simplistic kind of MVP overview of what base building should be, its a potentially deep and rewarding area of gameplay which I'm sure would go down well with players (despite the predicable naysaying that goes on here).
I really wouldn't be surprised if it was cut content from Odyssey, I doubt it was an internal mistake on the part of the leaker like one reply said, that doesn't really fit with the level of detail offered with the rest of the leak.
It feels like these two sets of points are aimed at very different and not necessarily consistent ideas of what base building would do or appeal to...
Sure, there are billions of empty systems and planets. Someone could set up a base in Dryao Aoc LW-L c3-2 or wherever and it wouldn't bother anyone, it can happily produce Lithium all day long for them to sell, and multiple people could set up bases with complementary economies so that they didn't have to go back to the bubble to get more Lithium every week. Obviously, though, a base there has no real context as a driver of PvP or territory warfare precisely because no-one else cares that it's there.
Equally, somewhere in the bubble, sure, you could set up a base as a way of providing BGS support to a faction, and then have it attacked by opposers of that faction. But I don't see what that adds to the BGS territory warfare over the existing tens of thousands of Odyssey settlements which are fought over in warzones and can be attacked or defended or otherwise used for BGS impact the rest of the time. If you're not getting PvP action around the existing bases and aren't finding them meaningful enough for mostly-indirect-PvP BGS territory warfare, how does letting a player say "there are now thirty-four BGS-relevant ground settlements in this system" make a difference? And in the bubble, space is relatively limited ... and commodity production is relatively worthless since you can just buy that stuff by the kiloton from thousands of existing markets.
I think they can either be things you set up in some uninhabited system for your own amusement if you find the early construction-to-self-sufficiency stages of colonisation projects the most interesting (and there are definitely people who would enjoy that!) ... or they can be sites of PvP conflict within the bubble as part of the BGS territory war ... but the functions and restrictions needed for them to effectively be one of those mean that they'd be very bad at being the other.
(And maybe there can be some flag where a base gets PvP-enabled because it's been aligned to a faction and is invincible otherwise, but I can think of all sorts of cans of worms and potential exploits with that approach)
But again, that also falls apart if they're supposed to be PvP targets. Sure, a base is cheaper to build and maintain than a FC ... but the FC is invincible. If your base maintenance costs can be increased arbitrarily by people launching PvP attacks on it (starter-level bases presumably aren't going to have great defences, right?) do you actually get enough use out of for it to count as cheaper? Equally, if being subjected to a few hours of PvP attacks overnight doesn't actually do any damage to the base from your perspective, it's not really a PvP asset.
And sure, carriers are expensive and generally only for the most active players ... but those are the same players who are participating in BGS conflicts with any degree of success. Direct PvP is pretty expensive once you consider the time costs of a fully-engineered ship, plus rebuys. Again, this is one where "cheap PvE home for fun DIY project" and "PvP asset to drive conflict" don't seem to be doable with the same mechanism.
(And if you're building it significantly outside the bubble, you're probably going to want a FC anyway rather than moving supplies in and out one Anaconda/Krait at a time)
I do sometimes wonder why Frontier leaned into first-person combat rather than base-building as their next evolution of the game. As a company, they have way more experience in latter (Planet Coaster, and to a lesser extent PZ and JWE) than the former. I can only surmise that a high-level "bean counting" manager in the company saw the incredible income Fortnite was making back in those days and decided that's what Elite needed.
Not that I want one over the other. In hindsight I think Frontier should have just focused on the spaceship aspect of the game, but if wishes were horses, I'd be trampled under a stampede.
I still think basic on foot mechanics are/were a stepping stone to other ship less content, like say EVA. EVA already works somewhat if you glitch out of your carrier or jump a geyser into space. You can maneuver in 3d and even walk on ship outsides. Adding pew pew to it seems a no brainer as what we do in this game is to shoot things. Imagine the salt if we could walk around but not shoot things...
You mean, No Mans Sky?
Its wishful thinking, but I would love base building. Mostly, because it would give me something to work for in game - and not like buying a FC, where you spend cash and that's the end of that part of the game. It wouldn't have to be freeform building like NMS (as I think this would be too much for Elite) but maybe some underground complex (with more or less only landing pad on the surface) that you build by adding predefined rooms connected in modular pattern - player could build those rooms by providing enough required materials (by either mining them themselves or buying) and credits.
So, in my OP I mentioned bases having different purposes... if a base was purely for storing things or producing, it would only be a target for raiders (like in any game with player bases, Rust, Ark, Dayz etc). If it were on the other hand a base setup to spew out large amounts of Power/Faction influence then there could be some PvP mechanic designed to interfere with this... a successful raid via resource theft or hacking or destroyed systems could say knock a base out of action in the influence area for a week or something similar. Also there is no reason why some kind of squadron territory control mechanic could not be created, that could feed into Powerplay and or BGS.
Bases that contribute influence to factions/powers etc would be player assets exposed to open play in a way no other aspect of the game would be. I'd argue for that reason they could produce a fair amount of extra influence/CC or whatever compared with other elements of the game. This would make them key points to attack/defend and have a sizeable effect on the BGS/Powerplay.
It all depends on who well the bases perform their roles... if they are setup as nothing burger features, then sure, they'd be a bit of a white elephant. But if they were configured to be very effective at producing their intended output then I think they would form a fairly important part of the BGS/Powerplay game.
I would suggest a player owner is given the ability to make a base that is either locked to solo/PG or locked to open... BUT.. only open play bases would be able to effect BGS & Powerplay or mine, manufacture or produce anything, otherwise there would be invisible influence/wealth producing facilities everywhere which would be grossly unfair with regards to BGS/Powerplay. I'd also give the owner the ability to switch a base from solo/PG to open, but only once, and its permanent if they do that. I'd see solo/PG bases as storage, restock, exploration hub bases only - as you say otherwise the ability to PvP flag things selectively would result in mass exploitation. Locking bases to open also gets around the problem of sneaky players raiding your base from solo/PG, which would suck.
Fleet carriers can't yield anything from the environment so have a different purpose... if you want to create a surface installation that affects the balance of power in the galaxy then you should be prepared to have it attacked by other players. Its success in this area would all depend on how powerful they were configured to be by FDEV of course.
I would also suggest that raiding a base to disrupt influence would have specific goals like releasing malicious software into its computer system or similar, not simply destroying the base. Rebuilding/repair costs to an existing base would be minimal compared with initial building outlay.
BGS groups will look for any advantage they can get, so I can see them building secret influence bases on worlds in systems they are trying to take over. To these most active players they have billions to I don't think they are going to be too concerned about the costs of building surface bases or defending/raiding them - especially if it gives them a further edge in their strategies. The scalability of base building can make it fit the purposes of players at all levels though, so while BGS groups will be building influence bases in the bubble.. Players with less time in the game will be able to setup small outposts to store their gear and potentially produce some commodities/materials off the grid somewhere.
Yes, fleet carriers would complement base ownership, not compete against them - I think everyone's missing the point when they say 'we have carriers so we don't need bases'.
You mean, No Mans Sky?
Well Hello Games have certainly shown what is possible when you are a developer with ambition for your game. If No Mans Sky added player bases, there's no reason why Elite cannot, the scale of both games is similar.
They are built on two vastly different technology bases, they aren't even comparable.
A player-addable facility that grants a few extra CC to the control sphere it's in, sure, that'd be a pretty valuable asset and potential target - though equally most powers could already generate hundreds of extra CC through the existing fortification process and don't because they don't want that extra CC right now. Of course, there's nothing to say that the bases can't be set up with 5C motives and have to be attacked by their "own" side.
BGS influence is even trickier, I think, because of the diminishing returns curves. Even a rule that said that all transaction values are doubled if they take place at one of these bases would be fairly marginal in most situations. Partly, I think, because genuine BGS conflicts between roughly equally-matched sides are relatively rare - a walkover is still going to be a walkover, a decision that neither side really wants to fight the other one (which is usual in most "roughly equally-matched" cases) is still going to be that. (I suspect the best use of a base for a PMF would be "aligned to another non-native faction" so that you can easily boost it to keep it out of invasion range or use it to drop your own influence to avoid unwanted expansions)
I feel that sort of "boosts faction" asset needs to be in a system where more points = always better, which neither BGS nor PP really fits right now. Though that's not to say that these bases couldn't come as part of a major Powerplay
There's a bit of a question here about how many bases a single player can construct: it seems like the answer you're implying is "lots/unlimited" rather than "one", or they'd be of very limited use in most BGS situations, but that gives all sorts of balance issues too, especially if they're relatively cheap to construct.
I think the implicit point is a slightly different question: why couldn't these things be made features of Fleet Carriers instead?
Production modules would be conceptually straightforward and fit well with the existing large FC cargo bays. BGS/Powerplay bonus modules could be introduced too (and if fitted give a "FC can be retreated from system if attacked" flag) and the carrier already has ways to hand-in most influence types. Home furnishings could be implemented as internal cosmetics and interiors modules.
When I look what did pushing Call of Duty to a space sim do, I don't see any good reason to push Minecraft/Rust/you name it to a space sim. :/
I am not necessarily against base building, but I think it should be limited to your instance. Fleet carriers are already bad enough. I don't want to see your base and I don't want to play with it.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if it's still planned. If they are going to sell another expansion it needs some gameplay attached to it. "Just" more atmospheric planets or gas giants isn't enough, you also need associated gameplay. And there is not much left they can add apart from ship interiors, EVA and base building.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if it's still planned. If they are going to sell another expansion it needs some gameplay attached to it. "Just" more atmospheric planets or gas giants isn't enough, you also need associated gameplay. And there is not much left they can add apart from ship interiors, EVA and base building.
For bases to make sense they would need to be meaningful. I like to draw comparisons to Foxhole. There the space is limited, natural chokepoints exist. "victory points" are up for grabs. You can build a bunker base anywhere but in the end they matter only on the way of an enemy push. However, every battle happens around such bases. They decide the outcome since any front-bound logistics is distributed via those bases.
There is no such thing in ED - space is practically empty and there is nothing to fight over if you don't tie it cleverly to some dynamic gameplay.
I think that No Man's Sky is a completely different game from the ground up, in fact I'd argue it isn't even a space game at its core. At least in its current iteration (After the 4.0 update I just played through the main story for the first time) it is a mining-crafting-survival game (get it ?!?
) disguised as a space game. I was very disappointed that, while offering loads of ships and the possibility to upgrade them, actual space flight is reduced to a minimum. The game practically goes out of its way to avoid actual flying (which is very, VERY bad anyway by Elite standards), in-system flight is pretty much an autopilot, and at one time the game literally prompted me to teleport back instead of flying. Probably because I wouldn't have had a chance to find the way back anyway, with the galaxy map being terrible. I still got the quote of one particularly vocal ex-Elite player in my ears praising NMS for getting rid of the "tediousness" of space flight... in a supposed space game.So no, No Man's Sky isn't what Elite should strive to be, because then Elite wouldn't be a space game anymore, either. Having just played NMS I can finally say: Elite isn't that much worse. It's first of all different. I noticed so many things NMS didn't do any better then Elite, yet Frontier gets flak, Hello games gets the praise. At least here. Luckily, the NMS socials and forums don't look much different in terms of how bad the game supposedly is
.And one more thing: Gamers being gamers, it doesn't matter if the galaxy is big enough to spread out the bases... you know they would clutter the pivot points of the galaxy with their annoying visions of how Elite settlements are supposed to look like.
No thanks.
VR yes, HOTAS / HOSAS not to my knowledge. But the VR controllers are integrated into both flight and foot play.
VR: Yes, but I disliked it. The control scheme was terrible for me, and when I first tried it, performance was terrible and drove me straight away. I got the advice to try it flat, and I enjoyed it much more, even so because they added the relaxed mode for casual peasants like me.
HOTAS: No. Either you fly with virtual controls in VR, or use a controller or M/K.
worst thing is, it is even more planes in space than Elite. No 6dof, just pitch, roll and yaw.