Gameplay Mechanics and Incentives in Starbase - A Forward-Looking Review

[MyrddinE]

I want to preface this by stating that I love Starbase and am greatly enjoying my time in it so far. I've discussed these ideas in Discord, and have sometimes been accused of hating the game, or 'wishing it was a different type of game', and this is not true for the most part. What I am is concerned. There have been many games in the past which have attempted open world, realistic, sandbox PvP and most have failed. Some I've really been interested in, but they never got off the ground... or they did, but with severely curbed ambitions.

I'd like to discuss the interaction between game systems and player incentives. Some of this will be absolutely obvious, some you may disagree with, and some will probably be wrong. Nobody is perfect, and I don't think all my thoughts are perfect either and that's before I attempt to condense them into easily misunderstood paragraphs of text. First let me set the ground rules. These are my axioms, my 'givens' that I assume to be true, that I assume are good things... but they might not match the vision that FrozenByte has for the game, or what other players assume, so it is important to state my assumptions early because they color everything else I write.

1. A larger economy is preferable to a smaller one in games with player-based economies.
2. More people playing Starbase is preferable to fewer.
3. The more effort invested in something, the more conservative people get with risks.
4. Player interaction, both cooperative and competitive, should be encouraged.
5. Every population of players will have trolls who don't play to win, but play to ruin others' fun.

Let me elaborate a bit on these axioms. First is the economy. I'm defining 'economy' as the trade of value between users. Goods, services, and ideas. A lot of trade is preferable to a small amount. None of these terms are quantifiable of course; 'a lot' and 'small amount' don't really mean anything. But when there are a lot of actors in a market, a lot of people attempting to trade their goods and services, the value of the market increases in a more than linear fashion. If you want a ship, but there is only sometimes one available to buy that's a lot less valuable than if there is always one available to purchase... even if there are only double the number of ships the value to all the players is more than doubled because the supply has become consistent. As supply increases further then the value starts to stabilize as well, becoming more predictable and consistent. When you can rely on the market and its prices, you can start to plan for the future, and this allows even more trade and value to be created because it opens up new markets (that can also grow in the same way as the first). First ore will become consistent and stable; then refined metals; then parts; then ships; then service jobs that rely on those ships; etc. As each lower-level step grows, it allows the higher levels of the market to grow and become stable... thus creating a richer, more interesting experience for all players with a lot of different ways you can interact with the economy.

Second is 'more people is better'. This may seem obvious, but there is a not-small group of people that have a more insular mindset. "If they don't like PvP they should play a different game," or "The editor is fine, it shouldn't be dumbed down for idiots." But these statements are exclusionary, and I believe them to be misguided. A successful game is successful because it attracts a lot of players, and one of the best ways to do that is to have gameplay that appeals to and retains different types of people. For example, almost every MMO is focused on group play, but there is a difference between 'encouraging groups' and 'difficult to enjoy alone.' It's true that the more gameplay elements that are added the more difficult and costly the game is to develop; I don't want to minimize the problems related to this. But this is a problem every MMO faces, and one of the reasons they are so expensive to produce. Attracting a large player base to sustain the MMO means attracting many different playstyles and player types, and that means handling the complexities of the interaction between these different groups of people. It's also important to note that players that engage in PvP don't do that to the exclusion of everything else, nor do players that primarily mine, or primarily play the market, do only those tasks. Catering to different playstyles provides a richer mix of activities everyone can engage in when they're just not interested in their primary activity.

Third is the aspect of risk. The more difficult something is to attain, the less you want to risk it being lost. In the real world I buy a car because I know there's a very low risk of it being lost. People follow traffic laws (mostly), theft is uncommon, and civilization has built many organizations and structures that minimize the risks of investing so much of our wealth into a single object. But games, by their very nature, are escapes from the restrictions of normal civilization. We're entering into the wilds, pitting our wits against the elements and each other, and this means risks of all types needs must be higher than in mundane reality. This means that when I invest tens of hours into personally hand-building a ship, or my faction spends hundreds of hours constructing a base of operations out in the belt, we are going to be far more risk averse than if we just spent some cash to purchase the item. It's not just virtual currency we have invested in the objects, but our very real labor. This investment required to build in this world means that the risks players are willing to take with these creations are likely to be lower than in similar games. Players may be less willing than expected to risk these huge investments in resources, time, and emotional energy than in similar games.

We have the idea that is core to nearly every MMO. Players should interact. The game design should encourage cooperative, competitive, social, and economic interactions between the players. A common thing I hear is 'space is vast, we won't be seeing other players often', but if that's true then I think the game will have failed as an MMO. Plus Starbase is entirely designed around a player run economy, much more so than most MMOs (including Eve), which means that if we don't interact the economy will fail. There should be gameplay devices that dissuade us from spreading out evenly in the ring and instead concentrate the majority of players into areas where they will come into frequent contact.

Finally, every game has assholes. Starbase will be no different. Any code of conduct will be violated, any rule will be broken. If the game allows it, players will do it. If someone can ruin another player's fun, there will be players that do just that, for kicks, all the time, with no provocation.

So those are my assumptions, my axioms. The rest of this post is going to take these axioms as given. I've just spent a wall of text, and I haven't even really started addressing the title of this post. If you've made it this far, I know you're hoping it will be worth it. Just know... so am I!

One of the interesting things about systems is that often you can start from any point, from any starting configuration, and the influences and pressures of the system will nudge us to ending up at the same approximate end point. These are known as equilibria. This is important because I'm going to describe how the system might be like, and how existing and planned gameplay features may influence that to change. If my starting position is different than reality, or different than how you think the game will start, that doesn't mean the end result would be different. With the same forces acting upon it it's likely that the same end result could occur.

So let's start with a utopia... my dream for Starbase. My dream might not be your dream, and that's OK. Because we're going to destroy that utopia anyway with the blunt force of cold, hard reality.

Players mine the ring for materials, but mining is only about 30% of the economy. It's the starter job that's the easiest to begin, and it's where most players begin (and some never leave). Above mining we have refinement. Some mining ships refine as they go, but most players deliver ore to player-run refineries. Next come factories that either create parts or manufacture systems or entire ships from scratch. These factories are marvels of engineering with immense effort (even more than for ship design) invested by the creators to reduce the manual labor needed to create these ships or parts. Finally we have the ships and base stations themselves, the end result of all the economic work below. While everyone is buying these ships and bases, it's the huge and relatively stable economy below that enables it to exist.

Services are also a significant part of the economy. Hauling goods, performing market arbitrage, towing, salvage, performing repairs, manual construction, exploration, mapping, extending ISAN, etc. Some players will do for their own personal benefit, but others will be requested and paid for via jobs.

Out in the ring, territory will be claimed and mined. Players will invest tons of resources and time to claim choice territory, and other players will invest a similar number of resources to take it from them. Conflict will ensue, with an uncertain outcome. Resources will be destroyed that need to be salvaged or rebuilt. Skirmishes both large and small will happen constantly across the ring.

So, with the axioms and the starting position out of the way... how will the systems currently in place (or planned) influence this world?

 

[MyrddinE]

The first obvious influence is that ships are fragile and hard to repair. There is no other space game where you spend hours recovering from the equivalent of a fender-bender. To be frank, I'm not aware of any game where a small collision can wreck critical systems. This is fascinating on one hand, because it will be interesting to see how players moderate their behavior outside the safe zones. I expect that the gameplay experience will be far slower in the long run; players will be more cautious about all activities, and the forums will be filled with the anguished cries of new players leaving the safe zone for the first time and wrecking their beautiful ship on an asteroid.

This is a severe departure from other games, and it is going to significantly curtail hot-rodding and other exuberant flying behaviors. Most players will not emulate the Millennium Falcon dodging between asteroids, because that would risk destroying the ship they worked so hard to earn (axiom #3). Thus a lot of 'game-like' behavior will likely be moderated, resulting in more real-world caution. A lot of players anticipating a fun space shooter will be turned away by the realistic fragility of their ride. On the other hand however, those few players willing to smash a hundred ships learning how to fly well will create some spectacular videos and feats that will invoke the same awe and envy that real-world stunts do. I fear that this may end up a bit like stories about Eve... more fun to vicariously enjoy than actually play.

A possible mitigation to this might be a system 'integrity field'; an energy sink that protects against impact damage by draining power from a capacitor. Newbie friendly ships could bulk up on capacitor charge to make the ship more forgiving to minor mistakes at the cost of fuel efficiency. This would also limit the effectiveness of 'ramming' a large ship with a small one, something that currently makes large combat ships extremely vulnerable to a kamikaze Vasama.
--------------------------------------------------
Another system, or more the lack of a system, is that there is no PvE combat planned. Even in a game focused on PvP, combat vs digital opponents serves as a training ground for the for more difficult and unpredictable behavior of other players. Operating your vessel in a stressful situation is a skill best learned in a predictable environment, even if that environment is hostile. AI opponents serve in that capacity, training players how to use their ship most effectively.

Paradoxically, I believe that the lack of PvE combat is likely to discourage interaction in PvP. With no way to practice fighting, most players will never feel comfortable with using their weapons at all (even if their ship is armed), and will become easy prey for a small group of hardcore PvP players or griefers (axiom #5). This problem is enhanced by the high cost of combat; minor damage takes a long time to repair manually, so even if you 'win' you may lose a ton of time and resources repairing your ride (axiom #3). This makes practicing combat prohibitive, further reducing the number of players who will be comfortable taking part in it.

If PvE combat is not implemented, some game system needs to be invented that encourages skillful weapon use and defensive flying to enable players to game some measure of comfort and skill with their ships outside of PvP. It doesn't have to be shooting mobs for profit, but I don't know what else it could be. I'm open to inventive suggestions! Whatever the system is, recognize that its goal is an easy on-ramp for combat proficiency, particularly for players not laser-focused on PvP. It should have risks, but the risks should be predictable (otherwise it is disincentivized just like PvP is).
--------------------------------------------------
Ships are fragile, and defenses are deliberately hard to automate. This means that non-combat ships are very vulnerable to combat ships. This is realistic, and expected, but I believe that it's taken to an extreme in Starbase. The only escape mechanisms in the game are being faster than your opponent or reaching a safe zone. In addition, there is no way for a large, slow non-combat ship to 'tank' the damage from a small, inexpensive combat ship. In similar games large freighters don't have to worry about attacks from noobs in Baby's Duplo(tm) Gunship; that's not true in Starbase, where the cheapest armed ship will be a dire threat to any unarmed ship that can't outrun it.

This will severely curtail all non-combat activities outside the safe zone. When anyone with a gun can cause millions in damage in just a few seconds, it's difficult to see why players will take the risk of flying a non-combat ship (axiom #3). But we don't want players in non-combat ships to only play the game in solo, desolate areas of the ring (axiom #4), and if we discourage them completely it's difficult to imagine a healthy economy (axiom #1). A solution I often see suggested is that players should always have an escort, but playing bodyguard is literally one of the most boring tasks imaginable: sit in this gunship, but 95% of the time there will be nothing to shoot. That's not a fun job, and even then (due to the fragility of ships) it's still likely that an attacker can cause significant damage to a large whale of a ship before being destroyed. There needn't be any profit in it; just the possibility of ruining someone's day will be enough for many people (axiom #5).

For this, I don't know what a good in-universe solution is. Other games solve this by making it difficult to catch alert players by giving them escape mechanisms they can take before the enemy reaches them. Eve lets you warp out (except at jumpgate traps). Albion Online and Crowfall do have player run economies (and you drop your inventory on death), but you A) don't need to drop your weapons and armor in order to be an effective merchant and B) you don't lose tons of gold just for being attacked, only for dying. In Starbase a merchant or mining ship will never be on an equal footing with a combat ship. So Starbase makes it uniquely dangerous to participate in the economy while also making player vehicles uniquely fragile.
--------------------------------------------------
Starbase only directly supports three types of gameplay: mining, PvP combat, and engineering. There are more types of gameplay that may arise from player interactions, the various jobs to support the player economy, but those types of fun are completely dependent on a large player base and a safe economic environment; it will be difficult to retain players interested in only those aspects of the game initially. Initially, the game will retain players who enjoy activities inherent to the game systems and it will take time to create an environment where traders, mechanics, factory tycoons, and similar can become similarly enamored of the game.

This limited list of supported playstyles is likely to make it difficult to attract and retain a diverse player base (axiom #2), which will have trickle down effects the size of the player economy (axiom #1) and thus the player-generated gameplay. I believe taking the time to natively support more types of gameplay is critical to the successful initial growth of the game.

Potential examples include exploration (suggestion: rare, randomly generated objects that are scanned for data rather than mined for ore; they can be tracked with specialized scanning equipment), PvE combat (suggestion: factories that spit out crazy, aggressive endos that shoot anything that comes near). I'm sure others can think of better ideas, I'm not saying these are the best things add to the game, just that it needs something to create interesting inherent gameplay for a more diverse set of players.
--------------------------------------------------
I've spent several hours on this post; I have more ideas about how the existing and planned systems will influence behavior, but I'm tired, and it's late, and I'd like to get some feedback on the ideas I've already written up. Here's how I envision the above concerns may influence my utopic vision:

Players mine the ring for materials, but mostly in the safe zone; only a small percentage of the total mining is done out in the theoretically richer areas of the ring. The little mining that is out there is mostly lone miners staying as far from other players as possible. The only trading hub is the one in the noobie area, because nobody can successfully create a trade hub in unsafe territory. Only two factions (other than Empire and Kingdom) have successfully created warp gates; the economy isn't big enough for anyone else to do so, and only those two factions can consistently field a force large enough to defend their equipment.

The player economy exists, but almost solely in the starting area since it's the only place where trade can occur safely. There are large factories that are marvels of engineering but they mostly lie unused because the majority of players stay inside the safe zone. Strategic PvP is infrequent; it's mostly griefers. Hauling services are not very necessary, since almost all trade occurs at one station.

Out in the ring, territory is rarely claimed except by the two major player factions and their direct allies. Smaller factions often try, but the problem is that as soon as their location is discovered they become a target for griefers; getting materials out of their territory is difficult and easily thwarted by a kamikazee run by a couple pirates to disable the hauler. Conflict occurs, but the pirates usually win and no strategy is necessary. There are no wars, because the two largest factions have no need (there is far more territory than they need), and no smaller factions have a hope of competing with the two monopolies in any realistic fashion.

 

[Meetbolio]

Hot damn. @Lauri, hire this man!

No but seriously. Excellent write up. I'll be reading it over again, and maybe some feedback will come up after I let this giant bulk of info sink in,

 

[XenoCow]

some game system needs to be invented that encourages skillful weapon use and defensive flying to enable players to game some measure of comfort and skill with their ships outside of PvP

On this front I'd like to suggest a "simulation" arena (I don't think I'm the first to do so). Players can pay to participate in two match types, an open and standard. In the open matches player designed ships within certain criteria are allowed, in the standard there is a pre-selected set of ships to choose from.

I think that this would solve a few problems at once. Firstly this would allow players a cheap way of testing their ship designs in combat and build their confidence in their ability to pilot in combat. Also, having a "mini-game" where players can be in-and-out in minutes is good for drawing in more players that may not have the hours needed for normal sessions in Starbase. Additionally, the match entry fee would incentivize players to earn income through the normal game, pulling players that would otherwise only play the mini-game into the greater universe.

 

[[QS] Combustible]

It’s a good write up, but I feel you’re trying to solve a problem we don’t know will exist yet. The answer to the suggestions is to just wait and see. A few questions and fact checking:

A possible mitigation to this might be a system 'integrity field'; an energy sink that protects against impact damage by draining power from a capacitor.

What stops this from being abused? A large ship could be absolutely invincible to collisions unless some sort of restriction was added. Plus, collisions aren’t as much of a problem as it seems. The asteroid belt, at least close to new player areas (where people bad a flying will go), is sparse compared to the rest and the trip there gives you plenty of time to get better at flight.

This would also limit the effectiveness of 'ramming' a large ship with a small one, something that currently makes large combat ships extremely vulnerable to a kamikaze Vasama.

Unless explosives are used, a ship like a Vasama would just bounce right off.

With no way to practice fighting, most players will never feel comfortable with using their weapons at all

We can practice combat with other people! This already happens, ships are tested outside of the safezone to find weakpoints. Granted, this is in the candidate server where there is unlimited money, but we also don’t have company money transfer solutions and many proper ways to make money yet.

In addition, there is no way for a large, slow non-combat ship to 'tank' the damage from a small, inexpensive combat ship.

They already tank damage plenty! Large ships have lots of mass, and they are able to tank many, many shots even without armor.

suggestion: factories that spit out crazy, aggressive endos that shoot anything that comes near

Wouldn’t this just be regular PvP content, but it feels a little more fake?

 

[Meetbolio]

What stops this from being abused? A large ship could be absolutely invincible to collisions unless some sort of restriction was added. Plus, collisions aren’t as much of a problem as it seems. The asteroid belt, at least close to new player areas (where people bad a flying will go), is sparse compared to the rest and the trip there gives you plenty of time to get better at flight.

Ships really are fragile. Even on bigger ships, a sneaky asteroid hit is able to take out a part of your ship that damages its structural integrity, and from there you can stop dreaming about coming back to Origin. Source: My own misadventures. One too many of them.

Unless explosives are used, a ship like a Vasama would just bounce right off.

If it's a kamikaze ship, explosives will probably be used when available.

We can practice combat with other people! This already happens, ships are tested outside of the safezone to find weak points. Granted, this is in the candidate server where there is unlimited money, but we also don’t have company money transfer solutions and many proper ways to make money yet.

Well the candidate universe will not be available in the full game; a way to practice combat with minimal monetary loss (a fighter is not minimal monetary loss) needs to be available.

They already tank damage plenty! Large ships have lots of mass, and they are able to tank many, many shots even without armor.

I'd count your C-01 as a large ship, and I can attest to the fact that it falls apart immediately to any sort of combat ambush.

Wouldn’t this just be regular PvP content, but it feels a little more fake?

It's technically PvE content, which is always welcome as a method of practice.

 

[[QS] Combustible]

If it's a kamikaze ship, explosives will probably be used when available.

True, but isn’t this post about collision countermeasures?

 

[MyrddinE]

It’s a good write up, but I feel you’re trying to solve a problem we don’t know will exist yet. The answer to the suggestions is to just wait and see.

This is partly true. We don't know that problems will exist because the shape of the final game has yet to be determined; there are mechanics that will be tweaked, adjustments made, systems reverted. But all this takes time, and worse it takes money. If a lot of effort is invested into a system only to realize it's insufficient or even detrimental to the desired end result that can cause serious problems for the viability of the game.

Games have roadmaps, plans. The purpose of this post is to describe some of the systems that we know of right now (implemented already or at least disclosed as planned) and identify how these systems as described may work in the final product, what incentives and motivations they create in players. When those incentives discourage players from enjoying the game then it's never too soon to be concerned... for the same reason that you stop and re-check your map when it sends you over a rutted dirt road rather than waiting until the end of the road to see if maybe you're off course.

You can be a passive observer, sitting back with popcorn to see if Starbase succeeds or fails. I'd prefer to do my best to help it succeed as best I can; most MMOs fail, and I don't want Starbase to become a statistic... a footnote in the 'Failed Games' section of a Wikipedia article.

 

[MyrddinE]

I wrote about a bunch of negatives related to game systems, so I also wanted to touch upon some of the positive aspects of the existing systems. There are many ways in which the unique aspects of Starbase create heretofore unexplored types of gameplay.
--------------------------------------------------
The ability to design something at such a granular level in a fully systemic world has fascinating potential. No other game offers a players a chance to control their experience so directly, nor the chance to affect the universe itself so profoundly (see: ISAN).

Players interested in design and engineering are going to be drawn to the game in droves. If the economy is large enough we're likely to see many fascinating things happen, especially around automation. Things that cannot be automated may create a significant service economy for manual labor. This has the risk of creating boring, tedious jobs (material sprayer comes to mind), but I think that economic factors will strongly encourage automation for tedious jobs.
--------------------------------------------------
I focused on the negative results of Axiom #3 previously, but it also has a valuable positive effect. Players are invested in their creations if they put manual labor into them. They feel pride in their accomplishments. A house you built yourself is fulfilling in a much deeper way than one you bought, even if both can be fun to live in. Similarly it creates more investment in the game world when you have a hand in crafting a part of it.

This increased valuation of the world helps form lasting attachments with the game. Rather than a shallow visit and you're done players are likely to be more interested in the virtual universe. In Eve players are invested in the social structures and the placement of their bases; in Starbase players can be invested in the beauty of their design, the ergonomics of their cockpit, the specifics of individual well-placed bolts. This will not appeal to everyone, but those it impacts are likely to be far more invested in the success of the MMO than any similar game.
--------------------------------------------------
We have most of the necessary building blocks for automation, though some are clunkier than others. There is a fine line to tread here; at one end we have endless drudgery, at the other we have the MMO equivalent of a 'gray-goo' scenario... a few players automate the creation of more automation, and endless autominers bring the servers to their knees.

But in between these extremes, a place which I have moderate confidence the developers are aiming for properly, we have a situation where the dullest tasks can be automated while the core gameplay loops require active player involvement. This is a delicate balance, and I suspect that it will require the most tweaking over time as players learn and disseminate new ways to automate tasks.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to list all the 'normal' things that don't set Starbase apart. Many games have mining, or player-based economies, or space-ships. The interesting aspects are the things that few other games do.

 

[MyrddinE]

What stops this from being abused? A large ship could be absolutely invincible to collisions unless some sort of restriction was added. Plus, collisions aren’t as much of a problem as it seems. The asteroid belt, at least close to new player areas (where people bad a flying will go), is sparse compared to the rest and the trip there gives you plenty of time to get better at flight.

You're probably a better pilot than I am, but I've wrecked three ships already to collisions. "Wrecked" isn't the same as "totaled". Two could still fly, but were damaged so much I couldn't repair them successfully by hand so sold them off. The other had to be towed.

As for limitations, the same as exist for everything else... limits to power consumption, to voxel size, to cost, etc. You could make a large ship invincible, but do you want to devote the capacitors, batteries, generators, and fuel consumption necessary for that? Or would it make more sense to just install enough capacitance so that you could hit an asteroid occasionally without wrecking the thrusters?

Unless explosives are used, a ship like a Vasama would just bounce right off.

I'll bet my Vasama against your Mammoth that I can do more damage with one impact than the entire cost of the Vasama, if I don't completely cripple it... and that's not counting the time needed to repair it.

We can practice combat with other people! [...] Granted, this is in the candidate server where there is unlimited money...

"This isn't a problem if we use the cheat server" isn't the best argument.

They already tank damage plenty! Large ships have lots of mass, and they are able to tank many, many shots even without armor.

I didn't define 'tank' very well. Damage you can walk away from is one thing, but in this game you still need to repair it. It takes a long time to find and repair all the bullet holes, replace all the damaged thrusters, reconnect the destroyed pipes and cabling. If a griefer can cost me millions of credits and hours of work just by shooting at me for 15 seconds... they win. I lose. In games with shields and instant repairs escaping after being shot at is no big deal... Starbase is not that kind of game, and the pain that can be inflicted on you, the player, by damage that doesn't total the ship is significantly higher than any other similar game.

It's more like griefing in Minecraft; plopping some lava blocks on a house, or placing TNT under the door mat button. It's not about whether the walls still hold out zombies, it's about the time it takes you to repair the damage... which is significantly higher than the time and effort needed to destroy it. There are very few lawless Minecraft servers that allow anyone to edit any blocks anywhere... and none of those lawless servers have a high population.

 

[[QS] Combustible]

"This isn't a problem if we use the cheat server" isn't the best argument.

I meant that as a little disclaimer for what happens currently. You points sound good!