Civilian versus Military Stations

[ZombieMouse]

With regard to the problem of Station siege being a gigantic disincentive to build anything nice outside of the Origin safe zone, I propose the following:

The ability to choose between Civilian and Military stations. I suggest that:

• A civilian station cannot be sieged if it's owner has been active in game in the last 12 weeks.
• A civilian station cannot block people from entering its safe zone, so it cannot be used to block or reserve resources.

I am really not a fan of the other restrictions for restrictions sake like I have seen proposed for civilian capital ships, like limited storage. I would not want to see BS restrictions like no hanger halls. Basically anything that removes functionality just makes creative players feel like second class endos. It should only restrict things that give military advantage.

I'm sure people will find a lot of issues with this idea, but I just want to throw something out there, because I find the provisional station siege implementation depressing.

 

[Recatek]

I would wait and see what happens with station clusters (announced in the progress notes a little while back). If those offer some more station security against sieges then they would hopefully be stable enough to create actual trade/social hubs worth visiting.

 

[Distuth]

With regard to the problem of Station siege being a gigantic disincentive to build anything nice outside of the Origin safe zone, I propose the following:

The ability to choose between Civilian and Military stations. I suggest that:

• A civilian station cannot be sieged if it's owner has been active in game in the last 12 weeks.
• A civilian station cannot block people from entering its safe zone, so it cannot be used to block or reserve resources.

I am really not a fan of the other restrictions for restrictions sake like I have seen proposed for civilian capital ships, like limited storage. I would not want to see BS restrictions like no hanger halls. Basically anything that removes functionality just makes creative players feel like second class endos. It should only restrict things that give military advantage.

I'm sure people will find a lot of issues with this idea, but I just want to throw something out there, because I find the provisional station siege implementation depressing.

I like the idea. I do. But it doesn't work as it stands. I can abuse this mechanic to reserve spots for future expansion. And there is nothing anyone can do as long as I keep playing.

 

[pavvvel]

The ability to choose between Civilian and Military stations. I suggest that:

• A civilian station cannot be sieged if it's owner has been active in game in the last 12 weeks.
• A civilian station cannot block people from entering its safe zone, so it cannot be used to block or reserve resources.

No. Categorically no.
When I bought this game, it said "fully destructible universe.
Now there will be non-destructible capitals, which will make the game much worse. Now you want non-destructible stations. Tomorrow you want non-destructible ships.

I don't think I need to explain how this will affect the game.

 

[Kenetor]

im gonna have to join the NO crowd here, we have more than enough safety.
Part of the fun is that there is risk, "civilian stations would ultimately break the game.

 

[ZombieMouse]

Tomorrow you want non-destructible ships.

Part of the fun is that there is risk,

There is a big difference between losing a ship that can be re-spawned after an hour of collecting materials, and rebuilding a station that took 500, or even 1000 man-hours to create.

I can't see any possible circumstance where losing the latter could be considered "fun".

I don't expect any agreement on this. But I do feel the need to give a voice for the creative crowd, even if that's not popular with everyone.

 

[shado20]

why not, we will have civilian capital ships, build a mega ship thats completely untouchable forever. if this game dos not total flop, in 10 years there will be lots of those untouchable ships just sitting around forever in game anyway, why not stations too!

 

[Kenetor]

There is a big difference between losing a ship that can be re-spawned after an hour of collecting materials, and rebuilding a station that took 500, or even 1000 man-hours to create.

I can't see any possible circumstance where losing the latter could be considered "fun".

I don't expect any agreement on this. But I do feel the need to give a voice for the creative crowd, even if that's not popular with everyone.

of course losing something is not "fun" but if you want a game where you don't have to face other players, then honestly, you picked the wrong game!
I like there is risk and PvP, even though I don't currently like the state of PvP and I hope it changes for the better asap, but PvP was a major selling point of the game, not the only major points but one of. we have a massive perma safe zone, and if you can put in the work to get one, cap ships will provide limited safety too.
If you specifically want more safety and a more single player experience, you could live pretty happily on the other side of eos, especially when the big patch comes to live and you can have a stations with respawns and a ship designer.
The best defence is just not to be found in the first place. its going to be very interesting when we learn more about the tracking system and how it can be enhanced or defended against.

 

[ZombieMouse]

[snip]

I have seen this argument presented many times. It seems to boil down to:

1. Don't play Starbase.
2. Don't leave Origin.
3. "Get Lost" in space where you will never meet any players.

It's a commonly held opinion, but it's not universal. IMHO none of these points are conducive to building interesting hubs of player activity outside of Origin.

There also seems to be an incorrect assumption that all creative players want a single-player experience.

 

[DivineEvil]

Generally agree. I think that the station would need a special module to be built, that would convert the station into a protected one. Maybe you can add more of those modules that will expand the Safe-Zone according to station size class.

 

[XenoCow]

Perhaps there could be a way to peacefully take a station so as to not lose the progress, keep the station in some capacity, and also allow companies to capture unprotected stations.

Here's what I mean:

• A player builds a nice little station out in the belt to make mining easier and sometimes do a little trade with some other local players.
• A company sees that the station is in a good mining spot and would expand their area of influence so the company wants to take it.
• The company initiates a siege with their military capital ship and the player is notified.
• Now, instead of defending the station in a battle that would surely end in the loss to the player, the player can either completely forfeit the station or opt to have the station become a vassal of the company.
• If the player chooses to become a vassal, then that station must provide some resources to the attacking company regularly but remains under the partial command of the player.

Gameplay wise this could be through a set tax, some sort of negotiation window where terms are struck, or just a button that allows the company access and then the details are worked out later.

I think having this kind of option will be beneficial for a number of reasons:

1. Players may build stations and know they have some option to keep them if they are attacked out of the blue
2. Companies don't need to spend so much on war if they can intimidate their enemies to give up in a more peaceful way
3. These kind of take overs would inspire more player interaction since small stations would have more traffic to their station as their conquerors would come by to collect their tax etc.

One downside I do foresee is less combat if players are given this option. That being said, I think that this option could lead to some very interesting dynamics (uprisings of banded together vassals, the sense of living in a country, political warfare and the trade of vassals for example) and of course sparing lone players' hard work while giving companies new ways to win territory.

 

[pavvvel]

There is a big difference between losing a ship that can be re-spawned after an hour of collecting materials, and rebuilding a station that took 500, or even 1000 man-hours to create.

I can't see any possible circumstance where losing the latter could be considered "fun".

I don't expect any agreement on this. But I do feel the need to give a voice for the creative crowd, even if that's not popular with everyone.

Who's stopping you from guarding your station? Or hiring guards? You may not have noticed, but this is an MMO.

don't want pvp? -you can build a station in the safe zone of the origins (maybe such stations may not be able to be broken)

 

[Kenetor]

I have seen this argument presented many times. It seems to boil down to:

1. Don't play Starbase.
2. Don't leave Origin.
3. "Get Lost" in space where you will never meet any players.

It's a commonly held opinion, but it's not universal. IMHO none of these points are conducive to building interesting hubs of player activity outside of Origin.

There also seems to be an incorrect assumption that all creative players want a single-player experience.

I'm not intending to gatekeep or anything, but everyone knew this was, at a minimum, a PvP orientated game.
I get where you are coming from, I'm more a creative player too, but the game does give us plenty of ways to be creative without limiting the experience

 

[CalenLoki]

I'll join NO crowd.

Full protection is just asking for troubles.
Any station is affecting military by providing resources and safe docking space.

Just a quick example: I build a "civilian" station and use it as pirate hub in the middle of busy trade lane. Nobody can touch me.

To make station truly and fully civilian you'd have to prevent any resources or ships from ever leaving the station. So you could build an empty pretty monument without any real gameplay function. But for that purpose Origin SZ is just as good.

 

[ChaosRifle]

There is a big difference between losing a ship that can be re-spawned after an hour of collecting materials, and rebuilding a station that took 500, or even 1000 man-hours to create.

For now, yes. What you are probably unaware of is the coming SSC editor for them, and by proxy, blueprints. The design is the pain, not the structure. Later on, I doubt this will matter much.

FB has made it pretty clear their intentions are stations will be a risk, civilian caps are protected for a users mobile home base, and the only limit of them is:
-not jumping into belt without a station to dock at (unsure if this still stands, docks now have a fixed size, which wasnt the case when this was announced...)
-no atmosphere pumps to passively generate income. (these are limited to stations, to provide a reason for a station to even exist at all, instead of just civvy caps that can't be sieged)

as far as FB is concerned, it appears the plan is station=risk+reward, cap=safety base, so in effect, they are the same thing, but caps get the bonus of being able to go with the player anywhere, because convenience.




TLDR; Hard no from me, planned and partially implemented game mechanics already support this idea in a much better way than this suggestion.

 

[ZombieMouse]

Perhaps there could be a way to peacefully take a station so as to not lose the progress, keep the station in some capacity, and also allow companies to capture unprotected stations.
[...]

• Now, instead of defending the station in a battle that would surely end in the loss to the player, the player can either completely forfeit the station or opt to have the station become a vassal of the company.
• If the player chooses to become a vassal, then that station must provide some resources to the attacking company regularly but remains under the partial command of the player.

There were some possible tax mechanics mentioned by FB already. So opting to "surrender" a station into someone else's tax area as an alternative to seeing shot to pieces sounds to me like an option worth having.

What you are probably unaware of is the coming SSC editor for them, and by proxy, blueprints. [...]
FB has made it pretty clear their intentions are stations will be a risk, civilian caps are protected for a users mobile home base

If we get station blueprints that obviously would change the balance a lot.

With regards to the civilian capital ships though, it still seems that the incentive is there to just use them instead of stations in many cases. Any station outside of the belt used as a refuel depot and safe parking area may as well be swapped for a civilian capital ship in this case. As long as civilian capital ships are safer than stations, players will have more interest in building and using them as stations than actual stations.

Most actual stations will be relegated to disposable bare-bones platforms for resource generation.

 

[ChaosRifle]

If we get station blueprints

We are, confirmed months ago. just not a priority right now, should be with the freecam editor, also, not a priority, sadly.

and yes, stations being used for resource gen rather than anything else is kinda the gripe a lot people have with them. Perhaps alloy fab will get limited to stations too, providing a reason to make stations out-of-belt for huge solar arrays. Otherwise solar civ cap it is