Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
04-27-2010, 03:36 PM
i thought of linking more akin to "choosing a home base". you link to one starbase and maybe allow a cool down between linking to stop you from base hopping.

as for maintenance cost, i think a game like STo needs a money sink currently inflation is goign through the roof with nothing to spend credits on you got things on the exchange going for ridiculous sums just because its easy to aquire lots of wealth.

i wouldnt have developed bases in terms of "we built a doomsday device for our base but yours doenst have one".

instead bases would be static and upgraded depending on time spent holding the starbase.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
04-27-2010, 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awarkle View Post
i thought of linking more akin to "choosing a home base". you link to one starbase and maybe allow a cool down between linking to stop you from base hopping.

as for maintenance cost, i think a game like STo needs a money sink currently inflation is goign through the roof with nothing to spend credits on you got things on the exchange going for ridiculous sums just because its easy to aquire lots of wealth.

i wouldnt have developed bases in terms of "we built a doomsday device for our base but yours doenst have one".

instead bases would be static and upgraded depending on time spent holding the starbase.
I agree that inflation is outrageous on the exchange (though the fabled improvements should help alleviate that).

However, would the ideas being retooled in the OP be a good money-sink or a bad money-sink?

That is to say, is there enough gameplay content included in the OP to justify players dumping many assets and resources there?


I'd definitely like to see ways to improve the game aspect of OP (and then we'd have stronger cases for bartering for a money-sink to offset inflation).

As for soloplayers, it'd be great if they could "warp-in" to conflicts and add them to their Siege Calendar - allowing smaller Klingon fleets to add enough to make for massive Siege conflicts (say 10 instances of 10v10 combat - essentially 100 people sieges). In addition to rewards, solo players might get limited access to the starbase's facilities (say 3 days access to their research/requisition bargains).

Any ideas?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
04-30-2010, 03:00 AM
Ladies and Gents,

The poll is up!

Vote below and make your opinion heard. I've switched back to PollDaddy's hosting - should save all the headaches of previous polls.


( --| http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/A99D97E08C7298F1/ |-- )
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
04-30-2010, 08:19 AM
It's always good to see another Starbase thread! Keep posting/bumping ideas you like so they stay in the forefront of the developers minds!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
II. Fleet-controlled Starbase Sieges
a. Siege Rules / Calendar[indent]A single starbase can only be assaulted semi-weekly (no more than twice a week; a fleet can, however, attack as many different fleet bases as they please). This is to protect factions with lower population numbers and ensure a fair (or worthy) fight.
Hate this idea , Why: A) not everyone wants starbases for PvE/PvP (they want it for crafting/social/storage), B) its difficult to schedule anything beyond "now" with a large group, C) The solution needs to account for people dropping/adding, D) some starbases will want to defend 4 times in one day, but not other days of the week.

One of the other starbase threads concluded there's no need for it since a PvP queuing mechanism already exists. When the defending starbase fleet is assembled and ready, they can just add their starbase to the PvP queue. The queue should have some "military style intelligence report" about the starbase for the attackers, and limit the number of attackers to within some percentage of the number of defenders.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
The siege map is a searchable gridmap featuring occupied spaces (i.e. a fleet starbase can occupy one grid coordinate - allows for fleets to occupy array spaces).
Too many fleets will want starbases. The other thread concluded that the only reasonable approach to prevent STO space from becoming infested with starbases was to have them in their own instances only accessible by transwarp. There are also advantages in that each fleet can have a different style of starbase, in a different type of system. This would break up the monotony of "doing the same thing over and over". Assuming starbases are built lego-style, if would also present attackers where no two ground scenarios were the same (the other thread assumes starbase PvP/PvE starts with a space assault against the attack and ends if the attackers can beam-aboard (ground assault) and hold the flag).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
04-30-2010, 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
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?
I'd suggest starting with some of the ideas from the other Starbase thread which allows someone to start a starbase simply and cheaply, but has an exponential factor to build. Essentially you start by mining, buy a seed module, do a "trade" mission to escort it [escort mission], "build" mission while it uses your raw components to build the initial hub). The other thread suggests all starbase components are crafted, but that might be draconian.

Here's the post from over there on Crafting/Trading:

Quote:
Starbase Crafting
Crafting can be tied to Starbases and brings many elements which expand the game. In this idea, players never stand around at crafting stations. Instead, they explore strange new worlds, perform scientific investigations, and pursue their Federation/KDF duties in a time of war. That is, Crafting in Canon.
  • Mining - Needed to get raw ore and rarer non-replicable materials. You get escort missions where you guard npc miners and npc haulers. Your PvE or PvP opponents try to steal the ore/destroy the miners. What your haulers make it out of the instance with is divided up between your team mates and deposited in your vault. The more valuable the ore, the more dangerous the mission. You could mine anywhere for normal matter, but you're really after materials that can't be replicated - so, you can't mine just anywhere.
    Why Mining?
    Let’s assume replicator technology is 90% efficient. Using Einstein’s E=mc**2, then to create a 1 ton starship armor panel, it takes 1.24 tons of mass (any type) not including the power to run the replicator. In addition to any old matter, we also know that some materials can not be replicated. Ergo, there is mining!
  • Ore & Non-Replicable Matter
    There could be several different types of raw ore, perhaps one or two types from each expanse. Miners/tankers would return so many units of Ore. Raw ore has no other characteristics other than name; but is made up of subcomponents. One of the components would always be "Normal Matter". So, for example, an ore named Pitch-22 might be 80% normal matter, and then so much non-replicable matter: 15% Rubidium, 2% dilthium, and 1% trilythium. All Pitch-22 would have those characteristics.

  • Schematics & Experimentation Some basic schematics are available for purchase, some as unique rewards from exploration missions, but generally you get these by decomposing existing items (you can not decompose crafted items). At the time of decomposition you “craft” a schematic.

    You can try to improve the recipe by experimenting with it by using anomalies and research materials available at Memory Alpha. Success is based on skill, and the more you craft the better you get at it. Simple improvements just rearrange statistics (e.g., instead of 20% tetryon, 20% Polaron, and 0% kinetic you can rearrange it to 10% tetryon, 10% Polaron, and 10% kinetic), more complex changes might improve statistics. In addition to changing component statistics, other items to vary on schematics are the amount of resources required, energy, and time.

    Being able to manipulate schematics is a branching technology (i.e., Crafting classes). At the base level common to all are simple refinery schematics, simple replicator console, and relief supplies. From there it branches out into many specifications: melee weapons, ranged weapons, starship energy weapons, launchers, kits, armor, weapons, engineering consoles, science consoles, tactical consoles, shields, replicators, refinery, starbase components, ship refits, etc. Schematics can be used by anyone (e.g., a doctor-crafter could create a new improved hypospray schematic for use in a normal starship replicator).

  • Refining- Requires raw materials, Formula-Schematics and consoles to convert raw materials into usable materials. This is a batch operation (think factory), you setup a “job” with a given schematic, ore, rare materials, and energy. It completes is so much time based on input volume. How much is converted depends on the schematic and the quality of the refinery.
    Sub-Idea: Anti-Matter is converted from normal matter and used for energy storage and used for fabrication of the mundane parts of items. Possibly it could also be used to run the station, crafting consoles, weapons, etc. as well; making it somewhat vital to keep a healthy reserve to keep the lights going (and a strategical element for space battles).
  • Craftables - Any thing you can get a schematic for you can craft: refineries, replicator consoles, foods, medicines, starbase consoles, ship components, kits, weapons, shields, shuttlecraft, ships, ship refits (upgrade your beloved T4 to an equivalent T5), etc. All crafting is done automatically by replicators (e.g., Factory). That is it’s a batch job, you put in the materials and come back later to get the goods. Quality/quantity is based on the quality of the replicator.

Public starbases could have general/starter refineries and replicators. Once you’ve built your own you could put them aboard your ship or starbase, building as many as you need. You might also have several types optimized for specific items (remember, you can tailor schematics, so one replicator might be good at medicines, and another better for weapons). Raidisode bosses may have rare items that yield special schematics for either finished items, or subcomponents.

In order to promote crafter socializing, advanced technology end-components should require advanced technology subcomponents only available from other crafters.

Starbase Merits
This has been suggested as a way of thwarting Gold Spammers by having "sharable" merits expressly for the purpose of growing starbases. Possibly connected to crafting, PvE/PvP. the difficulty with it is that once you make merits shareable, it allows spammers entry. Good idea, but no practical implementation yet.

Trading: Starbases as Centers of Commerce
In the last few world wars, protecting shipping consumed a large portion of everyone's navy. It should be no different today for Federation or Klingon. You wouldn't send out fully laden resource freighters to be captured or destroyed. Your job, as the captain of a warship, will be to escort the fleet to its destination (not to do the hauling).

From your starbase you check the computer against your inventories to see where those supplies are needed versus the reward, which is commensurate with the amount of material transferred. Some missions may "lend" special schematics (e.g., relief supplies). Some may require you to do raidisodes to get schematics.

First you need the stuff to ship. That might be raw resources, or it might be finished goods your fleet's crafters have made from the raw resources. Finished goods bring far higher rewards and are far more dangerous. You might not have what it takes to fill the order, so you might need to get supplies, craft, or even get schematics first to be able to do so.

Once you have all the "stuff", based on the volume it's going to take one or more npc haulers to haul it where it's going. The more haulers, the more stuff, the greater the reward, the higher the risk. Which means you'll need multiple fleet members to protect large loads. Essentially it would scale up, from solo play to full fleet.

Escort missions are hard because you have to keep the escort alive (unless your enemy wants to capture it). So, I can see these as PvE or PvP missions. In PvP, the real reward is if you can capture the freighter (that gives you goods for your fleet to transport)! Some breakage probably occurred during capture, and you might have to beam over an away-team to disarm the self destruct.

Trading encounters occur like the random encounters in sector space. Assume you're delivering emergency relief supplies to a Romulan world, so your fleet has to guard the haulers from the starbase transit gate deep into enemy space. Based on the risk-rating, there will be "n" encounters where the freighters get sucked into a combat instance.

Your fleet then needs to jump into the furball to destroy the enemy. Not only does this mean destroying the enemy, but using your shields, engineering teams, and science teams to keep your freighters alive. Heck, you might even have to beam an away team on-board to repel boarders. Perhaps you're stuck in the sector on until the freighter can repair their engines? Or, perhaps you just have to get clear of an area of space so you can warp out, or perhaps there's a warp field scrambler that needs to be destroyed while you're keeping your freighters safe?

In fact, the very first transport mission might be your fleet protecting your initial starbase during its creation phase. After all, the enemy has a vested interest in stopping you while you're weak. For example, you buy the starbase "kit" on Vulcan, a freighter (which you have to protect) travels into a new instance, and you must protect the freighter and the new starbase while it's being constructed (using materials you mined & refined).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
04-30-2010, 08:55 AM
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.
I don't believe a player-owned starbase is the way to go for several reasons, but primarily because it doesn't foster MMO philosophies (that is MMOs aren't meant to be solo-play).

I've seen my fleet dwindle too, but I like to think that something like this would finally give fleets a reasons for existing and bring such a variety to the game that people return. Combined with mining, trading, PvE/PvP and crafting starbases have something for everyone and can reinvigorate the franchise by bringing that sense of community that currently only the PvPers feel.

Also, to ease your mind, the other thread has the idea that anyone can create a starbase because they're easy/cheap to get into. However, only a fleet with its communal resources would be able to significantly develop a starbase. So, that gives everyone what they want.

Also, there's no reason the same ideas (e.g., crafting) can't be applied to starships (really, isn't a starbase just an overgrown starship? ) - which might alleviate a solo-players need to have a starbase.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
04-30-2010, 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarbasePrime
Hate this idea , Why: A) not everyone wants starbases for PvE/PvP (they want it for crafting/social/storage), B) its difficult to schedule anything beyond "now" with a large group, C) The solution needs to account for people dropping/adding, D) some starbases will want to defend 4 times in one day, but not other days of the week.
A) Your fleet has to opt-in to do PvP content (with a 1 week cooldown before changing the setting again). I state this in the OP and know that some will want/not want the fighting feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_kitlor]
[COLOR="DarkOrange
I. Fleet-controlled Starbase Construction[/color]
a. Construction Notes
  • [...]
  • If a fleet desires to not encounter sieges, they can opt-out on a 1 week cool-down.
B) It is difficult to schedule anything with a group because there is no in-game calendar system or similar system. My former fleet was organized but only because they had to find their own third-party tools for fleet management. More in-game fleet resources (like a calendar) would be great.

C) This would be the hardest part: adds/drops during Fleet actions. Hopefully, with enough warning/planning via a calendar and alert texts in-game - not many will drop. That said, the total combatants would need to be limited to whichever faction has the less players participating.

D) That's true. I only put that caveat in so that players wouldn't have to devote all their time and resources to starbase defense. I think the idea of a set day where a starbase is open for Sieges would be a great idea. Let's refine it!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
04-30-2010, 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
A) Your fleet has to opt-in to do PvP content (with a 1 week cooldown before changing the setting again). I state this in the OP and know that some will want/not want the fighting feature.

B) It is difficult to schedule anything with a group because there is no in-game calendar system or similar system. My former fleet was organized but only because they had to find their own third-party tools for fleet management. More in-game fleet resources (like a calendar) would be great.

C) This would be the hardest part: adds/drops during Fleet actions. Hopefully, with enough warning/planning via a calendar and alert texts in-game - not many will drop. That said, the total combatants would need to be limited to whichever faction has the less players participating.

D) That's true. I only put that caveat in so that players wouldn't have to devote all their time and resources to starbase defense. I think the idea of a set day where a starbase is open for Sieges would be a great idea. Let's refine it!
A) Saw that, and honestly my reply did leave out some other ideas - sorry about that. Typically a fleet is comprised of a lot of individuals and as such, some will want to engage in PvP and some won't. But the starbase belongs to all the fleet members. So, ideally, however the mechanism works - only those that want to jump into PvP should go. No one else should be hindered getting to/from the base. Those that do, great. Those that want to keep crafting, well they can do that too.

B) A calendar won't fix the issue. I could sign up for something next week and then learn my spouse has to work so I have to take the kids to scouts. Real-Life happens. Ideally a fleet schedules a time, but it has to be a go-nogo based on when the time rolls around. It should also be based on the number of defenders (+/- a small percentage). My Fleet's website has a calendar too, but often underutilized. I really like the fleet email-once-per-day they added. I'd also like to see color be enabled in the MotD. Currently its too easily lost.

C: Ideally it's as simple as people joining the instance. If you keep the attackers and defenders numbers equal to something like 10% then folks could keep added (in fact, I don't see why multiple fleets couldn't attack a starbase.

Personally, I hate the idea of a fixed day/time. I much prefer the queue system. Set it up whenever you're ready as many times as you want without artificial limits. Also, why limit those that want to devote all their time & resources to starbases do so?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
04-30-2010, 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarbasePrime
Personally, I hate the idea of a fixed day/time. I much prefer the queue system. Set it up whenever you're ready as many times as you want without artificial limits. Also, why limit those that want to devote all their time & resources to starbases do so?
Well, it'd be more up to the defenders to determine how often they want to get attacked (or else many wouldn't participate since they might not want to defend the base all the time).

I should go back and revise that, with the below perhaps?
Quote:
Fleets can flag certain days (and hours) that they're available for siege (this is to prevent fleets from spending all their time defending a station - unless they want to).
Alternatively, fleets leaders can also mark dates/times on a calendar for competing forces to consider.

For example, if most of my fleet can only make it Thursday night - we can open our base up for sieges that night but also search for starbases that are open for siege on the calendar ahead of time[, whether that day or a few days prior.

This gives fleets the tools to planning without necessarily gridlocking their decisions. Fleet Administrators could also contact opposing fleets to arrange days.
Would this work better?

It's harder to conceptualize but it removes a forced cap from the OP. I might need to do a mock-up to help people understand

I also don't necessarily mean a calendar per-se but some in-game planning/search tools would be great. There's only so much a Fleet MOTD can accomplish.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
04-30-2010, 07:06 PM
What's your objection to using the existing queue mechanism for PvP for this type of encounter? Is it based on the concept of "Open PvP"? If so, couldn't they just flip the Open PvP switch and do without the necessity of adding new controls for the player?

Even so, I still generally dislike the idea because I hate the idea of space (which is pretty small in STO) being cluttered with Starbases (in the other thread, they consensus seems to be to have them accessible via transwarp gates) nor am I thrilled with the idea of them opening a new zone for nothing more than being littered with starbases.

BTW, I say "hate" - but no idea is good or bad, it's just a challenge to keep hammering on it until there are no objections.
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 10:46 PM.