Starbase thoughts.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Just thinking of something.  Since we'll be toning down the firepower of a starbase to more suit a defensive role, what kind of special features would be good to make the base worth sitting around defending some planet?  Defense positions are boring half the time.  The player using the Base needs to have something to do between fights.  Becauser he's certainly not going to be flying around the super huge systems we'll have.


A starbase is essentially an orbital headquarters.

Asside from being a repair and upgrade facility, what kind of active mechanisms could a player be given to manipulate (not counting control of the in game AI fleet) so he doesn't have to sit in a starbase getting bored?


I'm thinking a couple of items such as.

- Freighter Dispatch.
Dispatch a special freighter carrying supplies or repair tools to another ship.  You can dispatch up to four at a time from your base, and they must be able to return (IE, they fly there and fly back, and must not be destroyed), or you'll have to wait for them to rebuild.

- Strategic Map.
The Astrogation Display for a starbase would have a Strategic Monitor mode in which the starbase player can get integrated views of the sensors of every ship on their team.  Only the Starbase would have the ability to use Astrogation as a tactical/strategic monitor map... since it's not really going to be using the Astrogation to... well, astrogate anywhere.

- Defensive Interceptors
Since the starbase is suppose to be the end all 'reward' to dedicated players who climb up the ranks of the game, and since a starbase is supposed to be kind of HQ, perhaps command of it's own defensive fighter compliment would be prudent.  (It IS a dock that can hold capital ships, why not have hangers?)  Since a starbase is nearly immobile, fighters as depicted in the carrier system would work fine because you can't realisticly send them very far.


Thoughts?

[DarkSun]

So we're kinda looking at a Babylon 5-like space station that can barely move but has enough defenses and firepower (counting fighters) to take on a battleship?

[Sandtrooper]

How bout warping bases through the Quantum Warp Tunnels for fast transit through systems if extra fire support is needed? That might make player bases more than a sitting duck....it might also make establishing more bases throughout a scenario...

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

@ Sandtrooper: Well, starbases are near immobile but CAN move. If you can get a gate near them, they can travel through a gate like anyone else.  So make what you will with that.

@ DarkSun: More or less.  It's a STATION.  It's not meant to go places for the most part, so unless you have either a huge fleet, or some defenses, it's a big flying bullzeye.  As a starbase is meant for command & Control operations as an HQ for a fleet and a repair and armament's dock... it's only natural that asside from the capital ship docking areas, it would have a plethora of shuttlebays and fighter hangers to deplay any and all assets.
Players don't want to just sit and defend... even if it's a killbase, you can't conquer the system with a starbase alone.  So giving the starbase more features makes it more suitable for the role of being the biggest 'unlock' in the game.

Before:
"I worked my way to Fleet Admiral and all I got was this slow moving gun platform.  That can be killed by a single player pulling a suicide with a tiny scout fighter."

After:
"I worked my way to Fleet Admiral and got the responsibility of a well equipped command and control facility capable of assisting my team and providing extra protection to my planet of choice."

[Jibbit]

About the Repair freighters do you mean they'll be unkillable ? And replacement should cost money/resource as well as time.

For command we could use the astrogation bmp, but a different set of buttons ? so there's no need for extra bmp's, but how about coding a command screen. Same map on the left, then you'll have about 15 extra buttons for fighter control, repair control, giving orders to specific ships, controlling resource and collection..etc etc ?

Should the mining resource be centrallised to each game and controlled by the starbase ? and that resorce used to make repair bots and fighters (that resource could also be used to repair you ship free, assuming you have enough) ? should the sb have it's own freighters for collection of said resource  ? or should it only be done by in game ai freighters ?

damn alot of questions ! you could make running an sb a really busy job !

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

No, the repair freighters would be killable, which is why you have to be careful.  If you let one get killed, you have THREE until you get it rebuilt.

As for the second question.  Yes, I was thinking astrogation.  But seeing your thoughts... I'd go with Just with two buttons extra on Astrogation, one with a ship filter, and one to go to a totally different button menus.

Mining won't be centralized, but I can see the usefulness of letting the four starbase controlled freighters have ramscoops and mining drones/lasers/whatevers onboard so you can order them to go ramscoop or mine.  Or go support other ships.  Which you would do by selecting a target, selecting a freighter, and hitting an order button.
Likewise the fighters would have a menu here as well.  Perhaps give the starbase twice the fighter groups of a supercarrier and have the extra four groups handle via the buttons.  (Because only the first four groups have keyboard shortcuts made for them.

[ChillFactor]

So we're kinda looking at a Babylon 5-like space station that can barely move but has enough defenses and firepower (counting fighters) to take on a battleship?

B5 and B4 could move, they had engines... remember that because I saw an episode in which B5 had to move out of the way of a super gun...

@ATC: Giving more fighters to sb's is completely logical, since they can dock a supercarrier. Also, how about a strategic command GUI, so you can send orders out to people on your team without using chat?

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Sounds logical.  But not so much ORDERS as various Starbase Markers.  (People aren't obligated to listen to a starbase JUST BECAUSE)

Since we're already using an Astrogation interface for the Strategic Screen, just add another button menu to it.  Save's Jibs the work.

So we have:

- Command Four Freighters for support operations with other ships.  (Includes repair resupply runs for ships, and supply collection runs for mining and hydrogen harvesting.)  *COMMAND SUPPORT*
- Command of eight fighter squadrons. (32 fighters.  Interceptors Only)  *COMMAND DEFENSE*
- The Ability to SEE the combined sensors of all friendly ships. *COMMAND COORDINATE*
- The Ability to place operational marker messages that other ships can see.  *COMMAND 'CONTROL' *

Do we need anything else, or does that about sum up a decent command facility in it's logical role, ability to keep a player occupied, and fairness to gameplay?

[ChillFactor]

Well, what I meant for orders is just the message, but you're not forced to follow them, just making sb's have a command option for better force organization...

I think that with that we can work, that makes sb's be a more 'realistic' base... Dunno what others think?

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Necroing this topic for a quick response.

The reason you don't want something to be termed 'orders' is because the language implies that you HAVE to listen... Even though you don't. 

If something is worded wrong, there is a person out there who will make the worst possible interpretation of it.  Invariably, there will be a n00btard playing who interperates something that says 'orders' as his god given right to boss everyone else around and throw tantrums when they don't listen.

Use words wisely.  Term it 'markers' to help curb such behavior.

[ChillFactor]

Well, orders would be for internal starbase commands, such as control or support.

Perhaps we can name these "assistance messages" and provide bounty for those who complete the tasks?

[Darius]

Necromancy is a needed skill with forum as decayed as this one. Indeed, without undeath, one might expect it to disappear entirely.

Query: By "markers" do you mean "missions"? Obfuscation in the discussed manner would be detrimental to everyone, not just "noobs". It seems needless because such persons will be stigmatized anyway, thus their commands ignored. This is the only mitigating factor needed for this hypothetical configuration.

I have two suggestions relating to this:

Suggestion #01: Allow players to set "waypoints", with attached name tag, to facilitate strategy and stigmatization of "noobs".

Suggestion #02: Make playing a Star Base less boring by allowing the "hijacking"  of AI controlled ships, thus giving an advantage while automatically balancing it.

Addendum #01: Everything player made or suggested should include a "name tag" to facilitate "social mapping" and remove the need for any "noob" mitigation in any context.

[NiteHawk]

Necromancy is a needed skill with forum as decayed as this one. Indeed, without undeath, one might expect it to disappear entirely.

Query: By "markers" do you mean "missions"? Obfuscation in the discussed manner would be detrimental to everyone, not just "noobs". It seems needless because such persons will be stigmatized anyway, thus their commands ignored. This is the only mitigating factor needed for this hypothetical configuration.

I have two suggestions relating to this:

Suggestion #01: Allow players to set "waypoints", with attached name tag, to facilitate strategy and stigmatization of "noobs".

Suggestion #02: Make playing a Star Base less boring by allowing the "hijacking"  of AI controlled ships, thus giving an advantage while automatically balancing it.

Addendum #01: Everything player made or suggested should include a "name tag" to facilitate "social mapping" and remove the need for any "noob" mitigation in any context.

Unfort until we start releasing again, will be dead for a bit. But I'll prob be back on Friday and Brent has been doing coding adjustments the whole time

Anyways, as for waypoints, I agree with having set waypoints. In order for it not to be spammy, I would say groups be introduced as well. You CAN currently group up with AI using a set key, but this is flawed because you can invite almost all AI (that have a lower rank then you) and make a huge army to attack. It's almost like when distress is called and all AI will gang up on one target, leaving everything else unprotected. Need to fix all that but anyways, continuing on waypoints/groups.

The amount of people a leader can invite to the group will be dependent on his rank. The leader (not sure if everyone should be able too) could mark waypoints for people to strike, defend, or rally up. This should be better with taking down starbases, etc. It needs to be quick though, you dont' normally have time to label everything. Point and click on the map, I would say. Maybe can have set types of markers though, ctrl-right mouse attack, ctrl-left mouse defend area, ctrl middle button rally. Something like that.

Well, capturing starbases was removed because it really ruins the balance, imagine not being able to upgrade after death, would be a super pain! Though I'm sure we can spice up things a bit -- somehow. Perhaps docking on a starbase won't capture him, but only disrupt the starbase for a period of time.

The only time people actually captured starbases was when they almost killed the SB. Right now theres a bug that makes the AI seem not to fire when AI is under X amount of crew. Becuase SB's have so much crew and lots of hull, its very noticeable. On a little ship, it probably almost never happens that they lose all there crew before death.

We were actually seeing about adding MOD APPROVED into the nexus becuase the nexus players, a whole lot of them, have cheated in the past. Basicly, your mod would have to be submitted and approved to be able to save stats on that server. You can still LIST the server and save offline scores (Or even local server only scores), but Nexus only would have to be well balanced, nice mods. I would say mods that have this could have a [A] (approved) or [BM] (Blessed Mod) to indicate that you can save scores on that server. We haven't talked too much about it but it should work. This will prevent even a slight change to a file, so you know that 'server' would not be nexus savable and would most likely have some weird gadgets in it.

[Darius]

Anyways, as for waypoints, I agree with having set waypoints. In order for it not to be spammy, I would say groups be introduced as well. You CAN currently group up with AI using a set key, but this is flawed because you can invite almost all AI (that have a lower rank then you) and make a huge army to attack. It's almost like when distress is called and all AI will gang up on one target, leaving everything else unprotected. Need to fix all that but anyways, continuing on waypoints/groups.

If ranks are going to matter, it makes sense that only the higher command ranks (like star bases) should be able to set tasks for the AI. Question then is, what happens when there is no player to command the AI?

The current system of inviting AI of lower rank than you use useful as is, if a bit broken, because it allows for fun to be had regardless of rank. If SF is MORE fun the higher your rank, then it is inherently hostile and unfair to new players. Some do not want to play for an artbirary "ACHIEVEMENT!" system.

Well, capturing starbases was removed because it really ruins the balance, imagine not being able to upgrade after death, would be a super pain! Though I'm sure we can spice up things a bit -- somehow. Perhaps docking on a starbase won't capture him, but only disrupt the starbase for a period of time.

If you let the Protoss win in Starcraft, you deserved to lose. If you let them capture your starbase, you deserved the loss. It should not be considered unbalanced as it is implausible to capture one, and is a fun teamwork exercise to do so. Regardless of the default gameplay, it must be left to the modders to decide star base properties like this one.

The only time people actually captured starbases was when they almost killed the SB. Right now theres a bug that makes the AI seem not to fire when AI is under X amount of crew. Becuase SB's have so much crew and lots of hull, its very noticeable. On a little ship, it probably almost never happens that they lose all there crew before death.

This makes perfect sense. You NEED a certain amount of crew to control something as massive as a star Base. It also makes perfect sense that a small ship, like a scout, can keep fighting with only 1 crew member. Rather than a bug, this seems to be a rationally decided feature that I hope is kept for modders to decide on.

We were actually seeing about adding MOD APPROVED into the nexus becuase the nexus players, a whole lot of them, have cheated in the past.

This says something about the rank system. It doesn't say anything good, either.

Basicly, your mod would have to be submitted and approved to be able to save stats on that server.

This is not fair to anyone branded a "cheat server". If you can't store your server data onto the Nexus, then what's the point? If anything happens to your local machine, that data is gone, and everyone has to start all over again. Rather, if people are so uppity about this, then why not have ranks stored on the nexus in individual server form? There should not need to be a global ranking system for "approved games", as each individual server will be different. Who gets to decide what is "cheating"?

Also, if SF 2.0 goes the way of Stardock's SF, then it won't be able to recover because the system for mod approval would be dead. Old players would never be able to start playing where they left off, and make it less likely for them to return.

[DarkSun]

I think it's perfectly fair for the devs to implement measures intended to stop players from cheating or gaming the system. Whether "MOD APPROVED" is the best way of doing this, I think that remains to be determined. But I don't see how anti-cheating/point farming measures, in general, would be 'unfair' provided a clear, unbiased set of rules and guidelines is published by the game admins.