Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
04-27-2010, 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
I understand part of where you're coming from: I'm a former SWG City vs. City player as well as WAR.

Having a maintenance fee for starbases based on combat might deter players from using it. We saw how divisive the death penalty / difficulty slider was these past few weeks.

This is why I'd suggested an opt-in, in the form of a fleet assigning their own starbase's difficulty level:
  • Off - No sieges possible
  • Normal - No losses; sieges possible
  • Hard - Some losses from fleet bank, injury possible.
  • Elite - Noticeably more losses from fleet bank, greater injury possible.

What do you think?
Omg I love it... Also alot like the *** guild cites.. Maybe add some mining ships to get the stuff we need to build with.. We have Sci and Eng officers why not use them..
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
04-27-2010, 02:37 AM
suprisingly i like it, but for this to work we would need to have starbasese first which won't come till atleast season 3. (last i heard)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
04-27-2010, 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alyvian View Post
suprisingly i like it, but for this to work we would need to have starbasese first which won't come till atleast season 3. (last i heard)
Very true - which is why sieges are predicated on creating starbases. I admit there's a content hump but this could bring many PvE, PvE, Crafting options to the masses.

I'm working on more in-game mock-ups, if you have seen the one I posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrawn
Omg I love it... Also alot like the *** guild cites.. Maybe add some mining ships to get the stuff we need to build with.. We have Sci and Eng officers why not use them..
The "how" of crafting is vague right now but I like the mining idea. It's not like they used giant replicators to build space stations. That said, is there a way to use existing resources (like commodities) until a robust system of building stations could be developed?
  • How can it be quickly and inexpensively developed?

If research centers had some functionality other than Memory Alpha, I'd be stoked.

However, that's a fully-fleshed out crafting systems away and I have no idea how the Memory Alpha update is going to effect gameplay (it's not on Tribble yet). The "what" of crafting could do with some overhaul, too.

Also:
  • How can more functionality be added without needing much content developed?
  • What be borrowed from existing content to get a foundation for something great developed faster- then expand from there?
----------------------------------
Note: rewards have been flagged differently than discussed before (here's an idea that would mean no item loss but incentivize Sieges - based on feedback from old CoX players who saw how bases worked -and didn't work- in that game):

c. Rewards for Sieges:
Player bases are flagged at:
  • Off - No sieges possible, strictly the owning fleet's social hub
  • Normal - sieges possible (no injury system; timer-based; base rewards)
  • Hard -sieges possible (respawns allowed, injury system; rewards slightly boosted)
  • Elite - sieges possible (no repawns in sieged area until siege is over - can chose to respawn at your last destination at any time but means you'd exit siege-play; rewards greatly boosted)
All participants can earn a base amount skillpoints (for themselves & boffs) and energy credits, in addition to rewards scaled for involvement in the siege (and whether your side won).

Successful team receives "Seized Goods":
  • Top 5% contributors get a better reward
  • Next to top 5% get a slightly better reward
  • Everyone else gets a slight bonuses
Failing team receives "Salvage Goods":
  • Top 5% receive slight reward bonus
  • Everyone else normal skillpoints, energy credits
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
04-27-2010, 12:17 PM
Good news: the OP hit character cap!

I've moved section IV. Benefit to Players / Developers to the second post of the thread.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
04-27-2010, 12:20 PM
Another great thread as always. I'm not as big a supporter of this idea as I once was, but good work none-the-less.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
04-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru317 View Post
Another great thread as always. I'm not as big a supporter of this idea as I once was, but good work none-the-less.
What changed your mind, in regards to previous ideas? Anything we can address now?

We're in a discussion - sometimes a player needs to rain on our parade to keep us cemented in reality.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
04-27-2010, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
What changed your mind, in regards to previous ideas? Anything we can address now?

We're in a discussion - sometimes a player needs to rain on our parade to keep us cemented in reality.
No, it's just that I used to be a huge supporter of fleet owned starbases, but now that I'm no longer in a fleet, it doesn't really seem right to give Starbases to one group while excluding the rest. I prefer Alecto's idea to add player owned starbases in for all players in the higher ranks (rear Admiral Upper, Vice Admiral, Admiral, Fleet Admiral), in place of new ship classes, though I think at least one more Tier of ships should be added first.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
04-27-2010, 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru317 View Post
No, it's just that I used to be a huge supporter of fleet owned starbases, but now that I'm no longer in a fleet, it doesn't really seem right to give Starbases to one group while excluding the rest. I prefer Alecto's idea to add player owned starbases in for all players in the higher ranks (rear Admiral Upper, Vice Admiral, Admiral, Fleet Admiral), in place of new ship classes, though I think at least one more Tier of ships should be added first.
Ah, I see.

I saw Alecto's and was dissatisfied with the individual run stations.

We'll have to disagree - not because of each thread's merits but due to our own personal tastes.

Hopefully, this could foster social gameplay and start consolidating fleets (further driving the social factor up). I was, at least partially, inspired by dstahl's comments in the Explore the System thread.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
04-27-2010, 01:48 PM
I was considering a single issue that has really plagued games such as Warhammer and **** with regards to ownership of keeps (or stations) that only a single guild can claim the keep and that there is normally a mechanic such as cost to run that keep OR some other cost system in place.

This effectivly eliminates soloers and small guilds even 1 man guilds from claiming keeps due to the lack of resources.

Well as startrek is based around we are all part of a single entity such as starfleet command. Or the Klingon Defence Force. how about we get rid of fleet ownership and instead change the mechanic to player linking.

Me as a single player can link to any starbase in the game and by doing so i can gain the benefits from that starbase such as say reduced costs on repairs OR some other benfit. Likewise if my station is attacked i am sent a distress signal and i can go and defend.

then you have the flete made up of basically lots of solo people, they can either choose to link to a single station OR each member can link to separate stations, the fleet would get a broadcast from any station any member is linked to and thus can mobilise to defend it.

However the benefit for claiming a single station is much greater than spreading it out over lots of stations. For instance say i defend my linked station and others come to help defend it I may gain an added bonus for defence while everyone else just gets a normal defence bonus. Likewise if a fleet owns lots of stations they gain a smaller reward than owning just a single station.

I dont think a station should be defendable in terms of "taking control" i think they should be static BUT you can gain bonuses or even gain a temporary power to order the starbase to fire on your target OR to extend its shields around you OR to even dock inside the station and take the fight to the corridors to defend agains bording actions

That was my idea dont do ownership do linking.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
04-27-2010, 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awarkle View Post
I was considering a single issue that has really plagued games such as Warhammer and **** with regards to ownership of keeps (or stations) that only a single guild can claim the keep and that there is normally a mechanic such as cost to run that keep OR some other cost system in place.

This effectivly eliminates soloers and small guilds even 1 man guilds from claiming keeps due to the lack of resources.

Well as startrek is based around we are all part of a single entity such as starfleet command. Or the Klingon Defence Force. how about we get rid of fleet ownership and instead change the mechanic to player linking.

Me as a single player can link to any starbase in the game and by doing so i can gain the benefits from that starbase such as say reduced costs on repairs OR some other benfit. Likewise if my station is attacked i am sent a distress signal and i can go and defend.

then you have the flete made up of basically lots of solo people, they can either choose to link to a single station OR each member can link to separate stations, the fleet would get a broadcast from any station any member is linked to and thus can mobilise to defend it.

However the benefit for claiming a single station is much greater than spreading it out over lots of stations. For instance say i defend my linked station and others come to help defend it I may gain an added bonus for defence while everyone else just gets a normal defence bonus. Likewise if a fleet owns lots of stations they gain a smaller reward than owning just a single station.

I dont think a station should be defendable in terms of "taking control" i think they should be static BUT you can gain bonuses or even gain a temporary power to order the starbase to fire on your target OR to extend its shields around you OR to even dock inside the station and take the fight to the corridors to defend agains bording actions

That was my idea dont do ownership do linking.
Some good ideas and criticism in your post. Hopefully, the developers wouldn't insist on an "upkeep" fee.

However, these are my follow-up questions:
  1. Would there be linking caps?
  2. If not, wouldn't most players link to the most developed space station?
  3. If 2 holds true, would that reduce the number of stations defendable?
  4. Is "linking" a fleet in everything but name?


I mostly focused on communal ownership of stations due to develop feedback on past ideas I helped compile. If we can address developer considerations, we stand a better chance of getting something created.

To quote dstahl:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
A concern we constantly have to deal with in MMO design is "how does this work on a team?" or "Is this something a team would want to do together?" or "how does this scale for a team?".

If anything, I'd think we want to lean more towards social game mechanics and away from single player activities.

Looking back on your own ideas - how would you tackle system exploration on a team? Is it compelling to do on a team? What changes would you make to make it more team friendly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
One of the goals in MMO design is creating features that foster social gameplay because playing with others is a keystone in a multiplayer game.

The more features you implement that focus on solo gameplay - the further away you get from your goal.

Ask yourself - do you want STO to become a single player game or should it remain multiplayer focused?

Its an interesting question. You have to keep in mind that as a business model - MMOs are based on multiplayer interaction that sustain subscriptions.

How would you approach your design given that feedback?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
To clear up some comments I read - the intention has been to open up dialog about the difference between single and group play and based on comments and how they impact game design.

Comments in this thread are very interesting and something we absolutely consider. Several others in other threads too my comments out of context to mean "we don't want solo gameplay". If anything I was calling out the fine balance and thoughts behind decisions for one type of game play or another.

My thoughts to the OP have always been this single question - "How does this work if I'm on a team?" Which is something that we always have to ask ourselves in an MMO. (ie does the mission design break if I happen to be teamed at the time).
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 AM.