Question about territory control and stations

Seat-Weld

Learned-to-sprint endo
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
24
#1
(I apologize if this has already been covered in a devlog or something I missed, but I don't remember this topic being discussed in detail)

Most theoretical large player groups in Starbase can be roughly sorted into one of two groups: nations/states and organizations.

A group styling itself as a nation is fairly concrete conceptually. Such groups would be concerned by things such as controlling territory, resources, etc. as well as denying those things to rival groups/preventing rival groups from encroaching on their claims. The bare minimum requirement for someone to be, at least nominally, a member of such a group is to live within it's established borders and follow it's established rules (whether they do so willingly, or under threat of punishment). The area a group like this controls is determined by how much it is physically able to manage and control, and is arguably its main metric for success.

Comparatively a group that styles itself as an organization is much more nebulous. Using the example of a corporation specifically, these groups would be more concerned with the members that make them up (and the infrastructure said members own/operate) than with more external things. In most cases there's no passive membership as you'd have to deliberately join, and subsequently be expected to contribute in whatever capacity you applied for, but otherwise they're not inherently limited by location or distance (A company can have branches in multiple countries). Territorial control isn't a huge concern, as you don't necessarily have to "own" a location to have access to it or operate in it.

My question is how much, if at all, sieges will take this dynamic into consideration as far as capturing stations goes. Obviously in the case of stations that function as military bases that question is easy: The victor kills the previous owners and takes all their stuff. However if stations can essentially become space cities, then that can allow for a little more nuance in the situation. While there are certainly people that would (and I have no problem with this being an option) happily burn said cities to the ground, there are plenty of reasons why a new regime wouldn't want to purge the entire population of the station they just captured. Baring any patriotic loyalty to their former leaders, there's also likely normal station denizens willing to submit to their new leaders if they're allowed to continue life as usual.

If a faction or group is a corporation, then it doesn't really matter to them who technically "owns" the space they occupy as long as they're allowed to continue working unmolested. Another player faction could "take over" their area and business continue on as usual. Similarly group claiming the location a corporation's factory exists in doesn't necessarily have to (or even want to) take over or destroy said factory as long as it's current occupants submit to it's authority in whatever capacity is required (taxes, contributions to a war effort, etc.)

tl;dr: To what extent can a faction exert a hegemony over another faction without it requiring active or zero-sum conflict, and to what extent will living in a larger player station associate you with the owner/how will you be affected by a station being captured in a siege as an normal citizen.
 

Recatek

Meat Popsicle
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
286
#2
At least for the time being, stations have a single owning entity that sets permissions, and sieges result in a change of that ownership (along with a lot of destruction). That may change in the future, but there's no explicit mechanical support for renters right now. Rentable station lots were a thing at one point, but have been phased out and may or may not return in some form.

That said, stations are intended to profit from taxes on mining in an area, and certainly open up some "pay us to do XYZ in our space or we'll blow you up" types of negotiations.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
14
#3
I do not know what will actually be implemented, but two types of organizations were planned for the game. Factions would be somewhat like your nations and companies would be more like your corporations. So far, there are only companies in the game. On the company screen, there is a field called Allegiance. It is always Neutral now, but I assume that would show the faction the company belongs to if factions were implemented. If and when factions are added, we will see if companies can change their allegiance from one factions to another and whether factions can own stations directly or just include companies and players that do.
 

ChaosRifle

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Messages
226
#4
I do not know what will actually be implemented, but two types of organizations were planned for the game. Factions would be somewhat like your nations and companies would be more like your corporations. So far, there are only companies in the game. On the company screen, there is a field called Allegiance. It is always Neutral now, but I assume that would show the faction the company belongs to if factions were implemented. If and when factions are added, we will see if companies can change their allegiance from one factions to another and whether factions can own stations directly or just include companies and players that do.
Factions are just "big companies" (frozenbyte quote). A company can be a subsidiary of another company. Factions kinda exist in that technicaly the dev 'factions' exist, have members, but are smaller than many of the player companies, and functionally, for now, are just another company run by other players, while endorsed by Frozenbyte.
 

Kenetor

Master endo
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
326
#5
also currently no "Faction" even exists in game, nor has support for this even started.
Sadly we haven't had an update on how they plan to implement it since before Closed Alpha even started.
But they will need to start thinking about it to bring these station chains/territory control to life since we can only have 3 stations each.
 

Seat-Weld

Learned-to-sprint endo
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
24
#6
also currently no "Faction" even exists in game, nor has support for this even started.
Sadly we haven't had an update on how they plan to implement it since before Closed Alpha even started.
But they will need to start thinking about it to bring these station chains/territory control to life since we can only have 3 stations each.
Realistically this won't be a huge concern for the foreseeable future, I was just curious if it's been mentioned at all how they plan to cross that bridge when they inevitably get there. Obviously there are much more important things for the devs to focus on at the moment though.

The worst case scenario I think would be every company and faction naturally evolving into the same type of militarized tribal group you see in every other sandbox game. With every station becoming a sort of generalized pseudo-fort (either out necessity or a lack of support for anything else) whose owners use like a communal den, because there's no reason for it to be anything more. Definitely not the worst outcome in the grand scheme of things, but it would still be awfully disappointing to see the game turn into space Rust with extra steps.

Factions would be somewhat like your nations and companies would be more like your corporations.
Potentially? There's still plenty of things up in the air/open to change at the moment, but as I understand it factions are functionally just alliances of smaller groups. So the same questions apply just as much to factions as they would the smaller companies.

That said, stations are intended to profit from taxes on mining in an area, and certainly open up some "pay us to do XYZ in our space or we'll blow you up" types of negotiations.
My main concern is that systems like this will either be too unwieldy or lack any real incentives to bother with it. It's easy for that sort of thing to go ignored, because people would rather play a zero sum game of constantly usurping each other and/or scorched-earthing smaller groups because it's ultimately safer and more efficient than letting them live to be taxed.

Though again as I mentioned: It's still way too early to act like anything is set in stone. I'm sure this will be a much different game in general by the time this starts being something to actually worry about.
 

Recatek

Meat Popsicle
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
286
#7
My main concern is that systems like this will either be too unwieldy or lack any real incentives to bother with it. It's easy for that sort of thing to go ignored, because people would rather play a zero sum game of constantly usurping each other and/or scorched-earthing smaller groups because it's ultimately safer and more efficient than letting them live to be taxed.
A perfectly valid concern, and I've seen exactly this happen in other games. Hopefully FB will be able to adapt and iterate if/when this happens.
 
Top