Mega Clan Station

Post by **Vice** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:45 pm

There are two parts to this question, please vote for the one you would prefer. This change is unrelated to any absence lockout or effects of absence, so please keep this thread and its votes on topic.

The purpose of this change would be to keep station building/destruction more fluid and significantly lower the count levels needed to maintain a territory.

1 - First, should the territory control credit level be increased for each clan built station? Suggested rates vary, but a general consensus seems to be that an increase of about 500% would fall within the parameters some players are interested in. Here is how this would break down - You would no longer need as many stations to significantly slow the control decay rate of territory your clan has built stations in. You would even be able to keep your control level above 95% for an entire week or so with as little as 25 stations built.

2 - Second, should the proximity cap be expanded for trade stations (say perhaps 5-10 sectors apart instead of only 2, or perhaps a fixed limited benefit level of 25-50 stations)? Please post a reply with details, if any, applicable for this part of the question.

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:54 pm

I voted for # 2. This should decrease the Station clutter and achieve the same function of decreasing decay and having to space them farther apart is no big deal so lets do it please. I think a cap on the number of stations per system is a good idea. I have more than a thousand or two stations at this time but will give them up if a server reset is required.

Dave S · Post by **Dave S** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:19 pm

I think this comes down to a careful balance of "what is the right number of stations allowed, and at what proximity" balanced with how easy it is to build/destroy them (i.e. availability/cost of stations detonators balanced against ease in building stations).

It is a very careful balancing between the two factors that I'm sure Vice will have to tweek several times (with customer feeback) before that proper balance is realized.

I believe that a good interim step would be #2:
- Increase % control per station
- Increase Minimum Proximity between stations
- Place a cap on quantity (50 is a good number)...or maybe make it so that once you build a station a certain distance from the star, it no longer impacts system control.
- I also recommend increasing availability of station detonators (they are few and far between) which makes it difficult to offset the shear numbers of stations in space. (I realize this recommendation is unsolicited, but I'll offer it anyway)

Cheers, and thanks Vice for working to always make the game a little better!:)

MiaZ · Post by **MiaZ** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:33 am

For limits on stations would it be possible for the limit to be applied to Clan tagged stations only?
If we are to have limits,I would rather have a limit by numbers, not by proximity.

Post by **Marvin** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:44 am

I, too, would prefer any limit to be numerical ... allowing for a more populated-looking area of space within the proximity of planets and stars. As far as increasing the level of territorial control, I vote yes. It woud allow players to concentrate on other areas of play without reducing the incentive to also work at claiming territory.

Accountant · Post by **Accountant** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:11 am

#2 for me as well. I think a numerical limit or a limit within a certain range of a star is the best way to go.

-Accountant

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:14 am

Sorry, I didn't vote for any of them. The reason being that I don't think that the clan station thingy worked out the way it was intended.

For sector control I'd rather see it based on missions. Say, a 1 percentage increase in ownership for each mission accomplished. And, if a rival clan does missions in your sector, then, for each mission they accomplish your control goes down by a 1 percentage point. That would save the universe from being cluttered up with burger joints!

It would also mean that no clan would gain control of a war zone, as so many players participate in them.

As Dave S stated above, it is difficult to even find stn dets, they are like hens teeth. The other point with stn dets is that you have to sit there, like a duck, for 3 minutes, one Ft and it's bye bye. You have no defence.

I'd still keep the ability to build stations, they come in darn handy, especially on a long auto jump.

Zmee · Post by **Zmee** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:24 am

I vote for #3 ... With a new idea, quickly outlined below ...

Mega Clan Stations ;

- Size of an Asteroid Cave ... (I'll explain later)
- Modular ... 10 Levels, each level(module) = 10% control.
- Can only be built(assembled) in Star's SecXYZ coordinates.
- One Mega station per System.

How it works ;

1. Core Module (level 1)... Requires several commodities that can be "farmed" and then built at constructors. Once you have the 5 components you can then "build" the core module. The Core is the size of an Asteroid Cave because this is the only way to destroy the Core... You need to fly a new detonater device (lets call it the Core Detonater) down the "tunnel" inside and drop it, then run like heck! If you don't make it out when it detonates, you die and the core remains intact! Core Detonaters CANNOT be saved in a save-game ... so reloading won't get you anywhere. Core tunnels are randomly generated each time you enter (generated from preset model .X configurations).

2. Level 2-10 ... To increase the level of the station you have to run contracts from the Mega Station. These contracts are basic "gather commodities" contracts that slowly increase the station to the next level.

3. Level 2-10 are your "modules" actually ... These module's can be destroyed by regular station detonators. Each new module appears physically on the core's body. With each new level comes new stuff, like weapon mounts, shield mounts, missle launchers, etc.

4. Other Trade Station's that reside within the same system as a Mega Station drains the stations "royalties" ... This means, more stations = less profit. This is why you don't see more than one McDonalds at a major intersection... Or should I say a GORFburger joint at ever intersection.

5. Upkeep ...or daily maintence ... A MEGA station will degrade over time ... If you don't run the "farming" contracts on a daily basis it will rust out, people will starve, disease will spread, and other nasty things your imagination can brew up.

Summary ... More stations are bad profit. One MEGA station is good and actually equals 10 stations or FULL profit if upkeep is maintained.

bedeep-bedeep-bedeep ... That's all folks!

Post by **Vice** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:24 am

For sector control I'd rather see it based on missions. Say, a 1 percentage increase in ownership for each mission accomplished. And, if a rival clan does missions in your sector, then, for each mission they accomplish your control goes down by a 1 percentage point.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding over what this actually is then. What you describe is already how the territory control system works. You don't gain territory control by building stations, you gain it by completing missions. Stations only help maintain the territory you acquire (while you are away) as a result of completing missions. This poll is in relation to the limits of stations and their effects on the decay rate of control, nothing else.

If you don't want to use stations or participate in clan activity, then this wouldn't apply.

GUNSLINGR · Post by **GUNSLINGR** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:44 am

I think you need to put the station detonators back to the original prices. Credits are easily made.... and it would stop this childish activity.

That way, if a clan is gonna take sumthing over, they need to work for it.

It would help the small clans, otherwise there is no use to start a clan.

also, if you want to grow the game, limit the number of systems a clan can have control of. 5 to 10 limit would mean that there would be room for new players to learn and grow.

Whatever!
Gun

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:37 am

I would vote for #2 if I was in a clan. But something else has to be done as well as Gunslinger mentioned to make room for starting clans to learn and have a possibility to grow. Increasing price of Station Detonators would not solve the problem since the bigger clans and more experienced and seasoned players already have plenty of credits to buy Station Detonators and new players or clans will not. So a limit has to be set and existing big clans have to be reduced to this limit like Thetiebers mentioned and like he is willing to do which I Admire.....

[Edited on 3-21-2011 by Maarschalk]

MiaZ · Post by **MiaZ** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:31 am

There was an idea I had long ago.
Not sure how well this will go down.
Don't know if it would make things anything better.

It was the idea that a 1 percentage increase in ownership for each mission accomplished would be for each mission, not each pilot.
If 2 pilots did 2 contracts in 2 different sectors in the same territory
a 2 percentage increase but If 2 pilots did the same contract in the same sector, shouldn't that be a 1 percentage increase for the one contract?

I do see the problem that this might just be encouraging players to play in separate sectors with little or no coops missions. Maybe not so good

[Edited on 3-21-2011 by MiaZ]

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:39 am

How do you keep track of individual pilots accomplishments then? Cause each pilot gets credit for the mission or contract completed and what you are suggesting in the case of same sector contract that each pilot would get 1/2 the credit or 1/3 or 1/4 depending on the # of players doing contracts in the same sector....

MiaZ · Post by **MiaZ** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:01 am

From post: 104127, Topic: tid=7399, author=Maarschalk wrote:How do you keep track of individual pilots accomplishments then? Cause each pilot gets credit for the mission or contract completed and what you are suggesting in the case of same sector contract that each pilot would get 1/2 the credit or 1/3 or 1/4 depending on the # of players doing contracts in the same sector....

yep, I can see the problem there too. LOL

[Edited on 3-21-2011 by MiaZ]

Post by **Marvin** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:45 am

I don't understand how Vets can continue to insist there isn't enough territory to go around. Take a look at the gaps in the quadrant map ... all waiting for some enterprising guild members to claim them.

Zmee · Post by **Zmee** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:18 am

From post: 104133, Topic: tid=7399, author=Marvin wrote: Take a look at the gaps in the quadrant map ... all waiting for some enterprising guild members to claim them.

... and then some wild, sd crazied clan member see's the claim and slams them to the ground ... something similar to what happened to that NAVY chap ... Avenger.

The way I look at it ... SD's should be illegal ... you show up in a system with one and it goes all hostile ... I'm talking about the AI hostility ... SD's are an act of terrorism ... One would think the system goverment would seek out these individuals toot-sweet.

It all fun and games until someones eye get's poked out

:P

BraveHart · Post by **BraveHart** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:37 am

I voted for number 2 and think this would be fair for all clans....

SeeJay · Post by **SeeJay** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:41 am

I vote for #2

Less stations needed to maintain control wouldn't clutter the space as much as it is now.

I also liked the ideas mentioned by Zmee with the "Mega Station" setup.

This is definitely a step in the direction of getting MP-clan enjoyable.
Thank you Vice.

I still don't think any wars (that includes actual fighting for territories) will pop up when you
can take control with defending clan offline.

Bossk · Post by **Bossk** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:06 am

Number 2 for me as well.

I don't have an issue with a clan having control of a system. You already have to work to gain territory control. The biggest issue I have had recently is the shear number of stations clustered around a system. It does not matter if my clan are in system trying to bring the control % down, with that many stations, it would take hours, and is very demoralising.

I like player built stations. They are free to trade at and can be convenient on long runs. But it does annoy me when I have jumped to a player station for a rest stop, only to find the hanger blocked because it is a "stacker". In my opinion, players have built those stations in full knowledge that they can not be used, take an age to destroy and are against the spirit of the game. I know that "stackers" have been stopped in the latest version, but they are still out there. Any changes should also work along side the removal or "modification" of stackers as required.

The new suggestions should apply to all player built stations, not just clan tagged. I think a limit of 7-10 sectors is good, but also a numerical limit should work along side. This will have the effect of clans being able to reduce the control of another clan but because they will not be able to just plonk another station to reduce the decay rate, they will have to raise the % again and maintain it they hard way - by going to systems and showing their faces. Maybe a slight increase in the decay rate is needed also?

@comments by Gunslinger and Muchtalks response: not all players have lots of credits. My self and Dengar are not as flush as others, even though we have been around a while. This is because we opted for a military path and so could not make money trading/scavenging. Not a complaint, it was our choice, but just pointing out that one element of this game I love is that you don't have to be loaded to play and not all players are super-rich. We need to make sure we keep our ships un-damaged, even though we do have plenty of money, it is not limitless for us and repairs cost. Station Dets could become a major part of our load out and so need to be affordable, to an extent.

Avenger · Post by **Avenger** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:39 am

From post: 104133, Topic: tid=7399, author=Marvin wrote: I don't understand how Vets can continue to insist there isn't enough territory to go around. Take a look at the gaps in the quadrant map ... all waiting for some enterprising guild members to claim them.

Starting clans don't know all about that, they have no chance to get settled as the big bully clan takes most of known space where players start, even the starting system is claimed by them.
So new players are not really looking to get themselves lost in uncharted space to start a clan.

On top of it all it feels like you are only allowed to start a clan in the middle of nowhere far away from most player activity and that will also add to the "why bother" factor.

If you are forced to start a clan in the outskirts of space, far away from the activity you can just as well play offline or on a dedicated server with your clan buddies, it will feel the same.
Besides, it will be really nice for new members who want to join the clan. Oh, you like to join, ok, go buy a mantis drive and then you fly to these coordinates for x amount of minutes to play with the clan buddies.
That will be really inviting for new players to stick around.

3 clans have already parished or been chased away from the server in the face of the bully, SCC, AS and Navy.

As long as there are no guidelines for clan activities it will only make players quit PvP or CvC play. (In all honesty, CvC never even got off the ground in the first place, it only caused ppl to quit playing or quit the clan system)

[Edited on 3-21-2011 by Avenger]

Post by **Marvin** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:10 pm

Clan versus Clan activity should probably be scheduled by the clans ... one clan challenging another. Perhaps a Leader Board could be set up to display on-going results.

It only takes about a half-hour to get from uncharted territory to the "main highway" of gated systems. If you'd rather spend all your time rebuilding in high-traffic areas, do the math and see who it is that wastes more time and credits.

Most new guys eventually want to visit Sol ... so teaching them how to get somewhere via the Destination windows is almost a given. And, until they learn how to navigate manually, they're only playing half the game.

Dengar · Post by **Dengar** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:08 pm

I go for #2 as well. And not because Bossk has, before any comments are posted.

It is well know that we have tried to be a thorn in the side of everybody, and no, we do not have any territory, but would like to make an impression. And by not having a civvy ship really does limit the fund making opportunities. And again to follow on, detonators are few and far between.

So lets try to make the Clan territory thingy work as it was intended, and remove the stacked stations, start again and then the new station decay/functionality could be tested better.

Post by **Marvin** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:45 pm

From post: 104167, Topic: tid=7399, author=Dengar wrote:So lets try to make the Clan territory thingy work as it was intended, and remove the stacked stations, start again and then the new station decay/functionality could be tested better.

Before you say that, you should go look at some of IM's beautifully laid stations. A lot of hard work went into creating those circles. And they can be viewed either top down or from the side!

No. Wait. Better not. Don't even go near our stations.

Anyway, I suppose I should be willing to sacrifice them all if it helps get things back to the rose-colored world of the future some pilots expect. And I suspect the rest of IM will feel likewise.

Dengar · Post by **Dengar** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:19 pm

I am sure that to remove them all and start again , if we do that, will be painful to some, but maybe, just maybe, it will be better in the long run.

But I do take your point Marv.

Ravenfeeder · Post by **Ravenfeeder** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:06 pm

From post: 104108, Topic: tid=7399, author=Vice wrote:
For sector control I'd rather see it based on missions. Say, a 1 percentage increase in ownership for each mission accomplished. And, if a rival clan does missions in your sector, then, for each mission they accomplish your control goes down by a 1 percentage point.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding over what this actually is then. What you describe is already how the territory control system works. You don't gain territory control by building stations, you gain it by completing missions. Stations only help maintain the territory you acquire (while you are away) as a result of completing missions. This poll is in relation to the limits of stations and their effects on the decay rate of control, nothing else.

If you don't want to use stations or participate in clan activity, then this wouldn't apply.

Thanks for the update on that Vice. I was under the impression that it was control of stations that gave a clan control of a sector.

StarWraith 3D Games Forum