Station Siege Mechanics

[Recatek]

I'm happy to discuss any other ways you believe this system could be more easily abused than a variable timer or king-of-the-hill mechanic.

As I said, I'm opposed to variable-length timers because having a predictable, reliable time to show up allows everyone to be there and have fun without turning the game into a job that forces you to be on-call at odd hours of the day or night. Sieges are pinnacle, keystone PvP moments and they should be big fights that everyone can be there for and enjoy firsthand without inviting real-life stress. Of course, there should be other smaller, less critical PvP objectives unrelated to stations for factions of all sizes to fight over on a more ad-hoc hour-by-hour basis, but that's a good topic for another suggestion thread.

My concern with long-term king-of-the-hill/capture point type mechanics is that I expect most of that time you're sitting there will be uncontested and boring. Fights only last so long in any game -- EVE being the main exception, but that's mostly due to time dilation, and boy do those TiDi fights get tiring. Generally speaking, PvP doesn't happen continuously over a 24- or 48-hour period, but rather in shorter bursts with recovery time in-between. This is reinforced by the noticeably short engagements from the Starbase combat videos we've seen so far.

With that in mind, a 24+ hour capture point means that, even if people are willing to rotate shifts around the clock (which is a big if!), you're also asking them to commit to long stretches of time sitting in a spot with nothing terribly interesting to do. I'd much rather just skip that boring downtime and focus on the interesting part: the fighting. If I have an inhibitor ticking down on an enemy station, I'm not chained to that area for the next two days. I can have a day or two of play sessions doing more interesting things, including preparing my ship for the upcoming fight, or scouting out the enemy trying to do the same. If I had to sit on a capture point without anything else to do, I'd be much less likely to log in and participate at all, especially if this is part of a multi-station war where I've just done that waiting five times over in the past two weeks.

 

[Atreties]

I like the idea overall, and I like that it addresses a lot of the potential downsides that other similar games have had. I do have some questions/concerns that I'd like to address

Station Core
- While the safe zone is active, all friendly-owned ships and other objects in its radius are invulnerable

Safezones are inherently dangerous mechanics, with lots of possiblilities for exploits and abuse so I'd like to very specifically define what "safe zone" means in your suggestion:

• What does "Invulnerable" mean in practice? If I press the trigger and attempt to ship a 'safe zoned' ship, what happens? Do I successfully shoot and hit the target, but nothing happens? Do I try to shoot, but nothing happens? What happens to physics in this area? If I ram something 'safezoned' at high speed, what happens? If my ship's generator explodes immediately next to your ship or player, what happens?
• Does this invulnerability apply to interactions between allies in a safezone? Can we use the safezone as free dogfighting training with 0 downsides?
• Can I damage my own ship in the safezone? Can I kill myself? Can I ram my own ship into my own station and bounce off like bumper cars?
• What about endos? Do all the station and ship invulnerability rules also apply to them
• What game mechanic explanation/visual feedback do players receive that explains what is happening with the invulnerability and why it is happening? (Like a shield around the station, a chatbox message, a visual effect on invulnerable things, etc)

You address a great deal of other issues with similar systems, but none around this topic, and that would be what has the potential to soil the entirety of it.

 

[Recatek]

Good questions, and worth discussing and solving. Worth pointing out that Starbase has safe zones already, so I'm not defining the concept. We don't know the full details on what SB considers a safe zone, but I can lay out what I think would work best and we could identify and try to solve potential exploits.

Not all of these answers will be "right", or the best, but let's start with some answer for each and then we can build and correct from there.

---

If I press the trigger and attempt to shoot a 'safe zoned' ship, what happens?
Ideally, if the ship is under the safe zone's protection (that is, in the owner's faction, or an ally of that owner's faction), the bullets will impact the target but do no damage and have no other effect, and no physical impulses are applied to the target. The firing ship may be affected by recoil or counterforces from the firing, if applicable.

If I ram something 'safezoned' at high speed, what happens?
Ideally, the target of the ram takes no damage and receives no physical impulses from the impact. If the ramming ship is under the protection of the safe zone, it too receives no damage or impulse from the impact. If the ramming ship is not protected, it is comparable to ramming an immovable object. While the rammed ship inherits no impulse from the impact, subsequent movement of the rammed ship may be inhibited by this new obstacle in front of it. (This is tricky from a physics engine perspective, so may not be fully viable. The intent would be to prevent people from being able to nudge your ship out of the safe zone while you're AFK, though.)

If my ship's generator explodes immediately next to your ship or player, what happens?
First, I'm assuming there's no way to explosively destroy a generator other than by damaging it (i.e. there's no manual "overload" button). So long as this case, then the only way to destroy a generator would be if you can apply damage to ships. Ideally this is impossible if your ship is under the safe zone's protection, even if you're the owner. If your ship is not under the safe zone's protection and detonates near a protected ship/player, your ship ideally receives damage as normal and the protected ship/player is unaffected.

Does this invulnerability apply to interactions between allies in a safezone?
As I've indicated above, ideally yes. If you want to duel to the death, you can step outside the safe zone.

Can we use the safezone as free dogfighting training with 0 downsides?
Ideally yes, though as I mention in the OP, I envision player safe zones as not extending too far beyond the physical extent of the station, so space might be an issue. I suspect this is already the case in the game due to the dev-owned starting safe zones anyway. You're still using propellant and ammo, mind.

Can I damage my own ship in the safezone?
No. I believe the game already follows a permission system for this. My understanding is that, by Frozenbyte's design, ships have a permission system for adding/removing parts or interacting with equipment while in a safe zone.

Can I kill myself?
Ideally not with environmental or physical damage, though the game already does allow you to suicide your character at any time and respawn at a bound spawn point.

Can I ram my own ship into my own station and bounce off like bumper cars?
Yes.

What about endos?
They can't bypass the physicality of ships and other endos, but they are neither pushed nor damaged by any source while under the protection of a safe zone. (This may not be technically feasible.)

What game mechanic explanation/visual feedback do players receive that explains what is happening with the invulnerability and why it is happening?
I'm partial to your crosshair turning into a red "NO" circle with a line through it and playing a distinct buzzer sound when you would have otherwise applied damage to a protected source. An on-screen popup could explain it after a few moments if the player doesn't seem to get it otherwise. Safe zones themselves would be demarcated with a visible glowing bubble and passing into one would be clearly indicated with some sort of audio and visual effect. There's plenty of other ways to signal safezone protection, but it could also very easily get quite annoying. Keep in mind that territory PvP is not a newbie activity, so if you're going into player-owned safe zones it's safe to assume at least some familiarity with the game's mechanics.

---

Of course, one exploit is that you could block/cage people inside of things and prevent their movement, but I can see a few ways of dealing with this. First, your ship is safe, so if you just wait, you can outlast your would-be captors. Second, you can always choose to manually despawn your character. Third, safe zone protection is predicated on friendly standing with the station owner, so the owner could theoretically revoke a particularly nasty player's protection and give them the boot.

Where else can this go wrong, and what can be done about it in a way that still preserves the safety of the station and its inhabitants?

 

[Jetthetank]

I too, like most of your Ideas here Recatek. They are some tried and true methods of base defense/onslought.
I play Gloria Victis, and it has a similar mechanic for assaulting castles by way of "Tokening" a certain guild castle if you want to attack it.
As I remember, they have a 12hr(?) window that the owning guild sets for which the castle can be tokened, of which the attackers token it for 2 hrs within that time frame, this assures that the defenders know roughly when they will get attacked and within their timezone.
THis system is great because I think you get 1 - 2 days advance notice when they token your castle to ensure everyone can assemble on both side to ensure a good turnout. Makes for exciting gameplay EVERY time there is an attack because it is a relatively short window to attack so no time to wait someone out, which means there is constant action within this time frame. I do believe there is a 3 day cooldown if I am correct.
In my opinion this is a very superior system for base defense in games and would love to see a similar system in SB.
Also the Tokens do cost the attackers a decent amount so it isn't just open game all the time.

This feels like a very free system which opens up for more arcadey encounters to a respect.
I don't want to have to be on every day for 6hrs defending my base, even if I could, because I would wan't to be out enjoying the content of the game.
This system combats Megas to a degree by bringing up the abilities of smaller guys to have a chance.
With a set timer daily, only the megas would be able to take over in respect due to everyone else trying to defend their own places.

This also brings into question how effective small groups should be.
Obviously, if a Open token on a base happens when a smaller group tries to attack another base, if a big faction fleet comes along to try and take it as well, the food chain should decide who comes out on top, but at least we will all know we had preparation, no one was caught off guard, and everyone has as many people as they can, or see fit to join in the battle.
I feel this would make for some GRAND encounters.

 

[Atreties]

Good questions, and worth discussing and solving. Worth pointing out that Starbase has safe zones already, so I'm not defining the concept. We don't know the full details on what SB considers a safe zone, but I can lay out what I think would work best and we could identify and try to solve potential exploits.

Not all of these answers will be "right", or the best, but let's start with some answer for each and then we can build and correct from there.

---

If I press the trigger and attempt to shoot a 'safe zoned' ship, what happens?
Ideally, if the ship is under the safe zone's protection (that is, in the owner's faction, or an ally of that owner's faction), the bullets will impact the target but do no damage and have no other effect, and no physical impulses are applied to the target. The firing ship may be affected by recoil or counterforces from the firing, if applicable...
...etc (see above message)

First, thanks a ton for taking the time to answer fully and in detail. If the version of safezone that is implemented mirrors yours exactly, it would be acceptable, especially if it were implemented as such because it was the simplest and easiest way to accomplish the safezone mechanic for early EA.

However, I would say that your proposed implementation, while a common and somewhat effective implementation, has serious issues on many levels.

• Unless very clearly communicated, it is very confusing and counter-intuitive for anyone new or unfamiliar with the mechanic.
  • Imagine you are new to SB, and you get into a dogfight with another ship. The enemy starts to run away. You give chase, scoring some hits against the enemy. The enemy gets closer to a nearby station, and suddenly slows down and turns around. Thinking you've run him out of fuel or something, you unload missles and turn all guns to full bear on him. Everything hits, your missles explode... and nothing happens. He's completely unhurt. While you are still trying to figure out what happened, he finishes turning around, and unloads into you, destroying your ship. How do you interpret what just happened? A bug, a hacker or cheater, lag of some sort?
  • Imagine instead that you are new and come up to a station. You see a few people flying around. One of them accidentally crashes into the station and nothing happens, he just bounces off. You, being new, assume that ships are sturdy and don't break from collisions very easily. You decide to try some flight maneuvers around the station for practice, mess up, and crash into the station just like you saw the other guy had. But instead, your ship crumbles to pieces, and then explodes, killing you. Now you have nothing, and you have no idea why.
  • To prevent this, you'd want clear indicators that something is different about the safezone. A visible spherical, transparent shield is a good start, but you'd also want something to indicate what's protected by the shield and what isn't. Perhaps anything protected by the station has a light shimmering sheen effect on their surface.
• Unlike almost every other aspect of Starbase, it is arbitrary, immersion-breaking, and very gamey
  • For example, in SB, you don't simply have a power generator, you have to also wire up things that need power. You don't simply die from getting shot in the leg enough times - you lose the leg. You don't simply find a rock and mine it to directly get perfectly usable metal right away. Ships dont simply have a health bar and lower in damage states as it gets hit, it has physical armor that gets punched thru by ordinance. Armor doesn't simply stay in place because you put it there, it has to be bolted down. You don't just have a UI screen because it's a game, your menu is a physical screen on your arm that people can see you looking at.
  • Starbase has very few "just because" or "because it's a game" arbitrary mechanics in it. Basically everything in place makes sense and has an in-world explanation for why it functions the way it does. A zone of complete invulnerability breaks this completely. Even if it's obviously communicated that the cause of the invulnerability is the station core, that doesn't nearly account for the magnitude of the effects, such as completely changing the laws of physics.
• It is rife with balance and bug concerns.
  • SB isn't designed to have ships be invulnerable and ignore physics. Removing that has the risk of creating a host of issues (like crashing ships resolving positions clipped inside of each other and becoming forever locked together, for example).
  • On the balance side, providing a safezone like this
• It makes the game have inconsistent communication/feedback to the player
  • Consistent communication to the player is a BIG DEAL in game design. When a player does a thing, it's extremely important that things happen as they expect, and that the same thing will happen on the 1000th attempt as the 1st.
  • Making the whole game function differently when in a safezone breaks this completely. If a player spends a lot of his time in a safezone (say, designing ships for his faction), and does all of his flying in that ruleset, then all the minor collisions and bumps he does to ships in the safezone slowly train him to expect the wrong things and train him to play incorrectly. When visiting a non-safezone location, the bad training from the safezone leads to him damaging or even destroying his ship.
• It severely limits gameplay possibilities within the safezone.
  • One of the biggest and most important activities that you'd normally engage in at a safezone is testing things, designing new ships, doing science on armor types, shooting things to test effectiveness of weapons, etc.
  • Similarly, one of the most common activities between allies in games like these is messing with each other when you know consequences are low and everyone is safe. I can't even tell you how many times I've been killed by my buddies because I made a bad joke, or because we just wanted to see who was the better shot.
  • Having to go into unsafe (and inconvenient) territory in order to do these activities majorly defeats the purpose and idea and utility of doing these things in a safe place

Personally, I'd like to see an entirely different implementation of what "safe zone" means. I'd rather see an implementation of safezones that more closely mirrors what that means IRL, one that isn't arbitrary or gamey, and one that has crystal clear communication and feedback:

A big bubble-shield.
The implementation is very simple and clean: Once the core is installed and begins working, a big spherical shield is erected surrounding the station. "Safe zone" is inside the shield, and that's it. The whole game works the same in all places of the world. No different physics rules, no invulnerability. The thing that makes the inside of the shield safe is simple: You get to decide who the shield lets inside.

Only whitelisted endos and objects/ships owned by whitelisted endos are allowed in. The inhibitor structure you describe in the OP simply serves to drop the shield after charging up enough energy to disrupt it.

 

[CalenLoki]

@Atreties I see one big problem with simple shield. How do you handle guests?

If they can do anything, all traders, tourists, emissaries, fresh recruits, ect. can just cut through wall, get right to the vault/command center and take/destroy/sabotage anything.

All the elaborate permission system they're working on right now is thrown out of the window, because you're basically in the wilderness. Just separated with impenetrable wall. Sabotage requires just passing the wall.

The same can happen on ship in the wild space, but ships are not meant to take guests. And can be (with classical safezones) docked safely overnight.

Such system will force all the trade to happen outside stations, because nobody sane will ever let strangers inside their safe bubble. It will be domain of big factions only, as they are the only ones who can have tradesman waiting outside station round the clock.

Finally it won't be consistent for new players anyway, since you can't do that with starting safe zones. Everyone is allowed there.

 

[Atreties]

@Atreties I see one big problem with simple shield. How do you handle guests?

How do you handle guests? You whitelist them. When they approach, they can transmit a request to enter, and you can accept or deny the request. In the accept, you can choose how long to accept, probably in a slider from 1 hour to "forever". All normal chat and negotiation can still happen, defenders can demand to inspect, confiscate weapons, etc

If they can do anything, all traders, tourists, emissaries, fresh recruits, ect. can just cut through wall, get right to the vault/command center and take/destroy/sabotage anything.

That is correct. This is a feature, not a problem. The game does not hold your hand and prevent all possible bad things from happening to you, making you, your ships, and everything you own into immortal gods, it just gives you the tools to be able to prevent the bad things yourself.

Edit: One thing to keep in mind is that all the normal tools available to you within the game are still at your disposal. You can still have passive hidden defenses controlled by yolol at critial locations of your station. People cutting into an important section of the station could still find themselves killed by an automated turret that they didn't know to disable. The core could also (eventually) be equipped with a sensor, able to determine that the station, or certain things on/in it are being damaged, and able to transmit an alert to the defending group.

All the elaborate permission system they're working on right now is thrown out of the window, because you're basically in the wilderness. Just separated with impenetrable wall. Sabotage requires just passing the wall.

Not at all. The permission system can still be applied to interacting with ships, and station intractables like doors. Things like whitelists/ownership for ships which allow you to open doors and access controls, etc.

Such system will force all the trade to happen outside stations, because nobody sane will ever let strangers inside their safe bubble. It will be domain of big factions only, as they are the only ones who can have tradesman waiting outside station round the clock.

This is just obviously incorrect. Brand new ships or people can be inspected for their first (for first few) visits to a station. Reputations and trust can organically develop. Long-cons and betrayals can happen, but again, that is a feature, not a problem.

The issue that we are trying to resolve is the type found in Rust. A nameless, faceless person or group breaks your stuff and takes everything with you having no ability to prevent it, likely because you are offline. The game should not prevent the possibility of conflict, just give you the tools to handle it yourself how you see fit.

One such tool that would work well with this system is a log of comings and goings of ships/endos that cross the shield. If you have a busy station with lots of trusted people from allied groups and traders coming and going, you can use the log to determine who was present at the time to possibly commit some sort of infraction.

Finally it won't be consistent for new players anyway, since you can't do that with starting safe zones. Everyone is allowed there.

Ideally, starting safe zones will be clearly communicated as such. And upon a player 'graduating' out of that tutorial zone, it will be communicated to them that the protections they enjoyed within the area will no longer apply. Ideally, I'd like to find a way to not have things or people be fully god-like invulnerable there either, but some things must sometimes be conceded where brand new players are concerned.

 

[Jetthetank]

Personally I think a big shield would be one of the most immersion breaking parts of the game and limit player interactions.
Why not have the airspace free reign around the station, but have the station invulnerable unless Tokened/ inhibited by war declaration.
That way the space could be patrolled/policed without a problem.
Have docked ships invulnerable as well as firearms opt in for use in the station.
Could hook up a permissions system for this.
Say alliance can use weapons on station, and can set use for others. have collision enabled for everyone, accept if ships are docked then they gain the invulnerable shield stats via magnetic transfer. have this invulnerability only work on ships with allowed transponders to ensure enemies can't dock to gain invulnerability.
This leaves superficial attacks/ disputes up to the players instead of limited by a game mechanic.
brings more immersion to having patrol vessels around your station.
As well as having to hail the station for safe docking to gain the protection.
Kinda like Star Citizen docking, but grants you invulnerability.

 

[Jetthetank]

This way a "Safe Zone" is more defined by the individual players presence while keeping offline raiding or raiding outside of the tokened time limited.
This way if players want to take the risk and buggy around an enemy station they are free to do so, but will run the risk of getting shot by patrols, and will be unable to damage any docked structures or the station.
This way they can draw out a fight if they want, but it will be up to the discretion of the station inhabitants. also enabling any testing of firearms, destruction of ships, etc...

 

[Atreties]

Personally I think a big shield would be one of the most immersion breaking parts of the game and limit player interactions.
Why not have the airspace free reign around the station, but have the station invulnerable unless Tokened/ inhibited by war declaration.

Just to be clear:
You think that a shielded space station, selectively preventing entry with its shield would be immersion-breaking...

...but a station that's completely immune to all damage and all forces of physics and emits the same total immunity selectively to specific group of endos and ships - would not be immersion breaking.

That correct?

 

[CalenLoki]

@Jettertank I thought about station-only invulnerability too. Although in my version ships would require enclosed hangars to become (physically) protected.

@Atreties permissions work only in safe zone. Outside everyone can use universal toll to access any device.

I understand your desire for leaving internal security to players. But it makes sabotage so easy, that people will be much more paranoid and unfriendly.
It has it's charm, as it makes running big faction or station really challenging. But IMO will create more toxic community.

Also it requires online presence for station to operate. Which rules out all small commercial places (i.e. gas stations) out of the game.

Regarding immersion: big shield is equally bad to invulnerability field.
Invulnerable station only is way better. IMHO.

 

[Atreties]

But IMO will create more toxic community.

And you think that giving one group on a large station godmode powers will create a less toxic environment, right?

 

[CalenLoki]

Right now I'm more towards protecting the station itself only.

But yes, I think that making stations places where you don't fight will encourage way more spontaneous positive interactions.

 

[Recatek]

A hard shell shield with no internal protection makes sense from a "your station is a base of operations for your faction in a tribal PvP game". It makes less sense in a "your station is a social and economic hub for multiple parties ranging from friendly to neutral" context, which is what I believe Starbase is going for. A hard shell shield creates binary trust -- either you trust someone enough to let them in, or you don't. In most PvP MMOs, trust is a spectrum. You may not trust someone enough to give them access to everything, but you might trust them enough to dock at your station and trade with you. Likewise, people approaching your station may trust your faction, but not the other visitors there. In that case, a hard-shell-only or station-structure-only safe zone would create a chilling effect on engagement with neutral parties. A safe zone that protects not only the station, but also its nearby ships and players, from each other, allows for a broader spectrum of trust and encourages more people to come to your station to trade and otherwise interact with you. In my opinion, the benefits of a fully featured safe zone outweigh the downsides.

 

[Jetthetank]

I am talking about a similar mechanic to Empyrion's new shield system.
Have the station's central generator core which generates a materially connected physics shield on all connected surfaces.
So meaning that any ships that have the proper transponders, when they dock to the station "magnetically/materially" link shields with the station surface therefore granting immunity to damage along with the station.
Also, have some sort of weapons deactivation field when within station tiles but not in airspace.
This way only idiots would be fool enough to drive into range of the station because any docked ships could still fire on airborne ships as well as static manned turrets.

Station tiles: the 3D rectangles that comprise station lots.

Therefore allowing:
- Domestic disputes to allow anywhere around the station.
- unlimited testing of ships around the station.
- full collision damage for everyone undocked.
- live fire zones outside of station tiles
- Station owners and allowed endos have live fire privileges anywhere on station.

Only ships allowed by the station are allowed to dock and gain shield immunity, meaning enemies can't camp your space waiting to take off.
Enemies can't use weapons within Station tiles, nor shoot into them.

When station is tokened with an inhibitor, after the charge up, would overpower all invulnerability, therefore inducing war state.
From which Recateks Ideas would be similarily added.

 

[CalenLoki]

You can have safe locked hangars for visitors.
Or as Jetthetank suggest treat docked ships as part of the station.
So station-only is a middle ground between the other options.

And unlike external shell, here only things that need active player protection are those that are in active use (not docked/hidden). So no need to patrol kilometers of station space, just your ship.

 

[Recatek]

"Your ship is invulnerable and immovable if it is explicitly anchored/affixed to the station" could work, and simplifies some physical collision interactions (don't need to worry about what happens in invulnerable ship collisions, since at least one would be fully immovable). A station would need to design for the possibility of hostile ships camping out of firing lines to pick off ships as they undock, but that could be an interesting engineering challenge and meta. Keep in mind you can always "garage" or despawn ships at stations, but sometimes you need the ship to be spawned so you can access its inventory and the like, or make modifications.

Two concerns:
1) What about ships you're currently building? As-written, this would not extend protection to ships-in-progress or floating yet-to-be-attached parts. Enclosed hangars could handle this, but ships get big and not all of them will fit in a lot hangar.
2) What about player invulnerability? Do you become vulnerable if you ever so much as jump?

 

[Jetthetank]

The spaces, or Tiles as I referred them as aforementioned would be in essence a shielded area. the 3D space in the ship construction lots. not a physical barrier. but a cease fire zone that would deactivate all hostile weaponry and I guess might have a plasma shield otherwise an enclosed hangar.

 

[Recatek]

What about ramming in those enclosed spaces? You could theoretically ram someone out of it even if damage is disabled.

 

[Atreties]

You are the type of person I really like debating with. You make excellent points, present all your arguments very concisely, while discussing the ups and downs of things you disagree with. I'm glad you're a mod.

A hard shell shield with no internal protection makes sense from a "your station is a base of operations for your faction in a tribal PvP game". It makes less sense in a "your station is a social and economic hub for multiple parties ranging from friendly to neutral" context, which is what I believe Starbase is going for.

I consider it extremely likely that we will see WAY more of the former type of station, and only a handful of the 2nd type, no matter what system is put in place. While your system might be more conducive for the "social and economic hub" station type, I consider the amount of functionality required to make one be effective to be not worth the investment, given that the largest use will be in the "PvP base of operations" type, which would not want or need the functionality.

A hard shell shield creates binary trust -- either you trust someone enough to let them in, or you don't. In most PvP MMOs, trust is a spectrum. You may not trust someone enough to give them access to everything, but you might trust them enough to dock at your station and trade with you.

I fully agree that trust is a spectrum, but I disagree that the hard shell would necessarily create a binary trust system. For example, the system I described allowed for a variable amount of permission-time granted. Also, for someone on the lower-end of the trust spectrum, inspections and disallowing/confiscating weapons can be implemented.

Likewise, people approaching your station may trust your faction, but not the other visitors there. In that case, a hard-shell-only or station-structure-only safe zone would create a chilling effect on engagement with neutral parties. A safe zone that protects not only the station, but also its nearby ships and players, from each other, allows for a broader spectrum of trust and encourages more people to come to your station to trade and otherwise interact with you.

This is something I had not considered and is an excellent point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the only protected parties in your proposal be members of the faction owning the station? If that's the case, how would your suggestion prevent issues arising between your guests?