Station Safe Zone Control

[Vampiricdust]

The topic of safe zone control is one that will make a huge difference in the game as stations are a place of commerce and security for players away from the starting zone.

As it stands from what we know, the plan is to have ships that are military can degrade or empower a safe zone. With a very vague window of when the safe zone drops depending on the ships actively impacting the struggle. This could mean the safe zone drops at a bad time for one side, making it a cake walk or a lame fight between a couple ships.

Thoughts or ideas?

 

[Oobfiche]

Dumping data here as requested, all of this is from LauriFB:


we're still figuring out the details, but the general idea is that military vessels contribute to the safe zone establishment/de-establishment


and since military ships can always be attacked their presence is solved by shooting at them



and after some shooting only one side remains and safe zone starts to turn into their favour slowly


yes, they have to be declared to be against you so their presence would count towards lowering the protection


they can also be for you, and then their presence counts towards the safe zone


the idea is that any ship who has military status enabled can contribute for or against (or be neutral) safe zones, but also all military ships won't have any protection ever, not even within own faction safe zones

so....work off of this till i get more information from him... if anyone reads this

 

[Recatek]

I'm nervous about that approach because it sounds like it would require, or at least strongly encourage, 24/7 patrols of a station, and would benefit only large factions that can afford to do so. This would have the effect of locking other factions out of the territory metagame unless they're willing to make real life sacrifices. This problem is something other persistent PvP MMOs (EVE, Shadowbane, Darkfall, etc.) have all wrestled with, and they seem to have come to the same basic design in the end to solve this problem. I'd like to go over how those games solve it, since I think they're very good at creating significant and memorable fights without forcing their players to reschedule their lives around it.

Major Objectives
Major objectives, like a station, or anything that takes a considerable amount of effort for a faction to build and manage, should be difficult to take or destroy. More importantly, a fight over a major objective should be a keystone gameplay moment, something that doesn't happen every day but, when it does, creates stories to tell. In order to make this happen, you need to create a fight. A big fight between two or more prepared sides. In other words:

A fight over a major objective should occur between two parties with advance (48+ hour) notice, and at a time that works as a compromise for both sides' time zones (leaning in the defender's favor since they have far more to lose).

Let's take Shadowbane's city sieges as an example. In Shadowbane, a city is normally protected by a Tree of Life that makes the city mostly invulnerable. If an attacker wants to siege that city, they build a (not cheap!) Bane Stone and place the stone outside of the target city's walls. This Bane Stone does not work immediately. Rather, it declares to the defenders that a siege is going to happen, and the game has a system for the attackers and defenders to negotiate a time 3 days later for it to occur (within a time zone window that works for both parties). This resulted in big story-worthy fights between two prepared sides at a time where both parties could commit fully and reasonably to the fight without having to wake up in the middle of the night. This was way more fun than player vs. wall or player vs. door like you get with ninja raiding systems.

Minor Objectives
Since major objectives are rare, and are not always practical or available to fight over, we need something to do the rest of the time. To satisfy this, the game needs minor objectives that are less of a setback to lose and are vulnerable more frequently. Taking Shadowbane again as an example, the game placed persistent ore mines scattered around the map that open to vulnerability on a regular basis (and at different times per mine) that, when captured, yield valuable resources to the controller. Minor objectives give factions ways to further their goals in the territory metagame on a day-to-day and hour-to-hour basis, and gives them something to do, without taking away from the key gameplay moments of major objectives. They also don't require 24/7 attention because losing one isn't a critical blow, it's a more "easy come, easy go" type of objective that's nice to have but you can also afford to just retake later.

EVE does both of these things as well. Player owned starbases (POS) in EVE have a shield that can be put into "reinforced mode", which acts similarly to the Shadowbane Bane Stone in that it provides around two days of invulnerability after the initial sign of aggression (or more if restocked). This allows both defenders and attackers to muster up and show up at a time when both can have a fun and proper showdown over the station. Similarly, EVE has many minor objectives to fight over on a day-to-day basis that provide meaningful PvP and can further an alliance's goals without needing to be a keystone moment or cause a major setback to the opposing side.

Importantly, MMO PvP games are different from survival games like Rust, Ark, and so on because the world never resets as it does in smaller-scale games. In survival games, the loss of a major investment is less of a blow because you can try again next server wipe. Not so in Starbase -- there's no "try again next wipe". This stuff really matters. Especially if stations represent major multi-week or multi-month investments of effort to build and develop, as I'm suspecting they will. Defenders should have the right to defend it in full force with advance notice so that, at the very least, you have a story to tell after the fact that isn't just "yeah they took it overnight because we didn't have enough people on shift".

 

[Vampiricdust]

I do like the idea of being able to schedule a battle for a station.

The current design means that battles for stations will either happen with little notice or by the time the safe zone drops, most of the fighting is already over with. Since military ships can be attacked regardless, one side is likely to be weakened to the point of defeat by then. The defenders could wait with ships in storage and then come out fighting when it drops, but the design would encourage them to attack before the safe zone drops.

If lowering the safe zone takes 12 hours, then those ships have to be there and stay alive for 12 hours while the defenders can strike at any time. It also means any reinforcements are vulnerable to attacks unless they make it to the station and store their ships until the attack.

I'd suggest instead of using military ships, players need to deploy shield generators which provide the safe zone, but create a non safe zone of 4km radius around them. Say it requires 10 of these generators to make a safe zone, which would allow the last objective of taking or destroying the station. After destroying the generators, the attackers can set a 12 hour window in the next 48 hours for the safe zone to be dropped and the defenders choose a 2 hour window in their window. Then you have your final battle for the station's fate.

The safe zone will go back up as long as the core isn't destroyed and at least 1 generator is rebuilt for 22 hours. If all 10 generators are replaced by the next day's window, the safe zone is fully restored. If not, the attackers will have another 2 hour window each day at the same time to press the attack again.

 

[Recatek]

One thing I wanted to add about the Bane Stone system is that it created a goal for defenders in a siege besides just "wait out the clock". The attackers were trying to destroy the Tree of Life and the city, while the defenders were trying to destroy the Bane Stone. If either side managed to destroy their target, the fight ended in a victory for them. This created a more dynamic back-and-forth fight during city sieges, made fights less lopsided, and rewarded more competent leadership and coordination on both sides.

I don't want to prescribe a solution, but as an example, Starbase could emulate this by allowing a faction to craft and deploy some kind of big (expensive!) shield inhibitor. Once deployed and anchored, the shield inhibitor is invulnerable while it waits three days to come online. The inhibitor becomes active within a specific time window (something suitable for both attacker and defender). While active, the heavily armored shield inhibitor loses its invulnerability but also suppresses the safe zone on the player station until either it, or the station shield generator, are destroyed, or three hours have elapsed and the shield generator runs out of power. If a station successfully repels an inhibitor attack, it is immune to subsequent shield inhibitors for some time afterwards (say, a week?) to give everyone time to prepare for another big fight on the next attempt.

 

[CalenLoki]

One thing to remember: There are different sizes of stations, so there should be different sizes of bane stones. Or simply a modular one.
Opening up mining outpost shouldn't be as expensive as opening megastation.
Something like 10-20% of station cost (stored resources and ships don't count) seems like a reasonable price for siege attempt.

 

[Vampiricdust]

The Shield Inhibitor sounds like a good idea. Probably better than the generators as then the attackers have to risk something resource intensive. I was thinking of the cost to put a safe zone up and having to have ships keep it up longer.

It gives a sort of tug of war kind of scenario where both sides have something to defend as well as attack. While initially I was against the immunity idea, it makes a sense so they can't just plop another inhibitor down right away. Cause otherwise they could just harass them constantly with them.

A week sounds good as it gives some time to repair and salvage the remains.

 

[Recatek]

Yeah, requiring the attackers to also "ante up" something expensive is an important part of it. The defenders certainly have more to lose, but it shouldn't be a frivolous choice for the attackers either.

Again, all of this is about creating big and memorable fights over important moments of the game. Creating big stakes for both sides increases engagement and makes it easier to get more people involved at one focal point to create that story-worthy moment. It's helpful to imagine the message both factions will send internally to rally people to the fight.

Defenders: "Listen up! Faction X has placed an inhibitor outside of Somename Station and we need all of you to come defend it. The fight time is [some reasonable time of day/evening] on [three days from now]! If we lose this we lose one of our major stations you all worked hard on mining for and building. Be there!"

Attackers: "Listen up! We just dropped an inhibitor and are going to take Somename Station from Faction X. The fight time is [some reasonable time of day/evening] on [three days from now]! This is our best shot at taking it, or else we've wasted that inhibitor you all worked hard on mining for and building. Be there!"

(These are adapted from the messages I remember getting broadcast internally in various EVE alliances and other PvP MMOs.)

The combination of having stakes (something to lose) on both sides, solid advance notice, and a reasonable time of day all focused on a single critical moment maximizes the number of people on both sides that will show up and create a big fun event for everyone involved, win or lose.

 

[Eranok]

I d wait for devs to make a proposal, this topic is so complex and central to the game that its pretty hard to discuss it publicly

I only have wishes:
- freedom
- no mixing of invincible ships near vulnerable ships (ships adopt a raiding stance NEAR safezone but not inside)
- many siege options
- sieges involving skill at least as much as farm, to avoid the game being too farmy and zerg driven. By skill i mean a lot of things: logistics, dogfight, teamplay, strategy, offensive/defensive design, alliances, etc. Ark is a bit too much of an economical war

 

[Recatek]

I'd like freedom too, but mostly the freedom to be able to play the territory metagame without having to get up at odd hours of the night.

 

[Eranok]

@Recatek another very hard topic.

The solution I had in mind was to be able to 'shut down the station' with a switch at the command center. It initiates a cooldown after which station shuts down entirely, even respawners ; and its resilience to raid progressively increases from 100% to 400% (for example).

But its just my opinion. There are also many others on that aspect

 

[Tumbla]

Definitely need something that prohibits offline raiding, a siege of a base needs to be something that takes alot of planning and dedication to that planning. People would get burnt out and quit if it is too easy to lose something you spend a month building up.

 

[Burnside]

Strongholds and Stronghold Points: any rental lot can be built as a stronghold provided it possesses key features like at least one anti-ship weapon and armored doors on all exterior access points, each stronghold lot provides a certain number of stronghold points (i.e. 1 for small lots, 2, for medium, 3 for large) in addition to extra points for the basic damage output of all of its installed weapons (e.g. +1 SH pt per 500~1000 points of DPS or whatever). As long as a faction owns at least one lot, or stronghold, or something, they (or the owning player of that lot or lots) are considered part of the Station Defense Force can see the estimated SH value (+/-10%, rounding up) of every lot.

Each ship belonging to an SDF-enabled faction, not just the SDF members, can reinforce a station's Stronghold Value by capturing "Patrol Nodes" that spawn near to large amounts of traffic or Station Strongholds as long as they have an active Military Transponder. Each ship with a military transponder rates the ship it's installed on based on the total damage output of its weapons or troop capacity down to 1/10ths (or 1/100ths, undecided level of granularity) of a Stronghold Point, rounding down. Ships with active Military Transponders cannot benefit from safezone protections unless the transponder(s) are turned off, turning the device(s) on or off requires a cooldown/spool-up timer to prevent abuse. Troop capacity is determined by how many command chairs in the ship lack an MCU. Every second/minute (undecided) an enemy or allied military ship worth at least 0.1SH (or 0.01SH) remains in range of a Patrol Node, they reinforce or degrade the Stronghold value of the station by the given amount, up to double the station's SH value, or as low as Zero, which deactivates the station's Safezone for a number of minutes equal to the station's full SH value- once that "War Timer" runs out the Station will slowly recharge its SH value passively and can be sped up by friendly units capturing more Patrol Nodes, enemy forces can cap Patrol Nodes to despawn them and deny them to friendly forces but cannot degrade the Station's passive safezone recharge, once a Station recharges its SH value up to 100% the safezone reactivates and must be depleted again. If any enemy faction manages to capture a Stronghold Lot by replacing the owner's "Stronghold Chip" installed in a Station Defense Mainframe (identical to a chip reader but any universal tool within range can detect its location as a floating waypoint on their HUD, to prevent perfect hiding spots), the Stronghold reverts lot control status to the capturing faction, if 51% or more of a station's SH value is captured by the enemy faction/alliance in this way they gain control of the station. Defenders that recapture friendly Strongholds only retain control of the lot until x amount of time after enemy forces leave the area at which point control is ceded back to the original owner because mutual defense pact agreements or w/e.

Stronghold Lots can also install an "Outpost Beacon" or "Headquarters Mainframe" which use basic transmitter/receiver equipment to link two stations together to share the Outpost's SH value with the HQ, but not the other way around, meaning an attack has to deal with more Patrol Nodes until it can capture the Outpost and defenders retain a larger number of defensive options and a larger buffer of Stronghold Points to hold the HQ station. A station can only ever have one Beacon OR Mainframe at a time, but with enough receivers pointed in the right directions, any number of Outposts within range can be linked to a single HQ. Attackers can mitigate an Outpost's defensive value by locating and capturing the Stronghold Lot that houses the station's Outpost Beacon, though they will most likely find their fleets well within range of the HQ station's own defensive anti-shipping weapons.

The use of Stronghold Lots as capturable points of interest gives the attackers incentive to keep them mostly intact and to force any militant defenders to work together to prevent the station from falling under hostile ownership which may risk their own investments in lots, stored materiel, or political currency. Patrol Nodes are just a cheap throwaway mechanic to force invaders and defenders into active maneuver warfare, and even smaller stations should have at least two Patrol Nodes spawned at any point in time, but only when a War is declared, putting the onus on reinforcing a station (or even having to make the difficult choice of which station should receive the most reinforcement) only to an active wartime situation as well as limiting the tedium if chasing down Patrol Nodes to only when absolutely necessary.

 

[Muhdra]

Why not make safe zones kind of like how POSes work in EVE? The safe zone could be an area effect that requires some type of semi-rare resources to maintain. This would be good for the following reasons:

1) Station-owners have to remain active to ensure that their station remains stocked with that resource.
2) It gives an incentive to other players to go out and find that resource. This creates some economic gameplay and player interaction.
3) Making it a quasi-limited resource that is in demand by multiple stations creates tension and possibilities for economic and military PVP.
4) Players that want to take down a station have the option of trying to choke the supply of this resource.
5) Gives solid security that makes stable gameplay for players possible and relatively straightforward to maintain, but also offers a way to destroy it.

One possible weakness I see:

As areas around stations become depleted of resources, it makes it necessary to transport that resource over longer distances. This will raise prices and risk to continue operating stations closer to the "core" of the game instead of on the frontier. This is cool from a trade and economic interaction perspective - players can be rewarded for taking the risk of making the run to deliver the goods, but it may become too difficult or expensive for many stations. But, if the local resources are depleted, what's the point of keeping the station open anyways?

I agree with other posters that there should be some type of mechanic where an aggressor can trigger a battle for control of the station where the safezone goes down at a set time and both sides fight it out for ownership.

 

[Meetbolio]

Let me elaborate. I'll tell you a story. So listen up, sit down and grab a snack.

The Church of Pip have received info on the location of a base full of herepips that refuse to join the Chruch. (Oh and this would be very hard without a coord system, which we don't have, meaning directions will be a difficult thing to discuss). Of course, that is a worthy cause for a crusade, so the Chruch prepares: They find out when most of the enemy is alseep, they build as many heavy flamers as possible and mount them to the most agile ships their factories can pump out. And so, they set off.

Meanwhile near the herepips' base, a miner peacefully dines on some space rocks. He suddenly notices the Church's fleet menacingly flying toward their base, and as his ship is torn apart by heavy cannon fire of the Saint Loaf 7000 (the Chruch's standard corvette), he pings @everyone in their Discord: "GUYS WE'RE GETTING RAIDED EVERYONE GET ON AND HELP". But alas, the station is doomed. Only 5 people can get on, as the faction only consists of 75 people, most being asleep. A couple of people boot up their game, but the rest are scattered throughout the galaxy; Even if they scramble home as fast as possible they'll only get there in 10 hours of continuous flight. In a couple of hours, the Church's fleet smashes through the last couple of blocks of the herepip's base, which now lost the work of 75 people over 2 weeks. There were many ships, resources, and endo bodies inside, all trashed in a couple of hours by an organised surprise raid. The issue of the presence of Church's fleet could not be solved by "just shoot them lmao", because you can't just shoot a fleet of a corvette and a couple escorts when endo ratio is something like 30 : 3.

Okay let's rewind. We'll change the amount of time the ships need to be inside of the safezone to degrade it. From 2 hours... Let's say 12 hours. This should allow the defenders to get to the base in time, and also give more people on the base a chance to wake up. Sounds awesome, right? Let's see how it plays out. Now sit down, grab another snack, for I shall tell you the same story in a parallel universe, where the rules described above apply.

The Church finds the herepips. They're angry. Preparations ensue. The raid is ready. The miner is pathetically blown to shreds again, calling the base's forces to assemble. This time there's a whole 12 hours for the defenders to shoot the enemy and defend their independence from the church. What's this? The Church's torpedo bomber was just blown to shreds, it didn't even try to move. The Pope of the Church asks what happened; Turns out the captain went to sleep. Oh right... The Earth is round, and the people of the Church are now on the dark side of our space rock. Most of them are humans, just like the herepips, and they need to go to sleep. So they do; while there are still tons of ships left in the safezone they're swiftly wiped away like a bug on a car's windshield. The Chruch lacks power, and they have to retreat.

Alright that's that. Pause the universe and let's think a little. The cause for both losses was the roundness of the Earth and the unreadiness of either side. The battle could have gone differently if both sides were ready and were notified a couple days prior, so that they can gather forces without forcing a 12-hour capture requirement.


If only someone already proposed a solution that could be slightly modified to fit in the game...

 

[CalenLoki]

@Meetbolio
Solution: make the earth flat.
Simple.