Player owned bases

[Maarvy]

Player owned continent and bases in 3 year plan ?

Im curious what the PSU comunity takes on this , having played a number of mmos with player built assets and full conquest I know there's a world of differance between a in game base and a player owned one .

Lets assume ( I know we shouldnt ) that these player owned bases will take some considerable resources to construct .

Would you want these Base's to be vunerable 24/7 , limited to server prime time or some other method , maybe you just want a safe zone to epeen your guild name .

Should it require to special cost or skill to take your hard earned pixel fortress or should any johnny be able to hack your base ? .

How do you think it a player owned continent could effect the game in general , will the other continents become neglected ? will the game loose players as the players loose pixels ? .

[Crator]

Perhaps they will somehow tier the player owned stuff with the regular? For instance in PS1 there were lattice links that tiered the progression towards the next base. So in PS2 they could do the same sort of thing to where you must work your way through the non-player owned spaces before getting to the player owned content.

[Littleman]

I think we'll be working with designated base zones. As in, empires capture an area, maybe an outfit bids on controlling the area, and the winner gets to construct their base and its layout at that location, costing stockpiled resources the entire way of course.

I don't think it wise to just let outfits build wherever, it still has to feel like Planetside 2, only instead of the developers setting the layout of the base, the players will.

Mind you, outfits (or individual players) would be bidding on every lot: bases, towers, and those 1-2 hex outposts. After all, bases aren't the only things worth fighting over anymore.

[Rat]

My only fear would be that if a large outfit had a base, they wouldnt bother helping with fighting on the public continents.
I guess one way around this to limit or eliminate resource gain at player owned bases, and have the owned bases cost resources to maintain.

[Maarvy]

I think we'll be working with designated base zones. As in, empires capture an area, maybe an outfit bids on controlling the area, and the winner gets to construct their base and its layout at that location, costing stockpiled resources the entire way of course.

I don't think it wise to just let outfits build wherever, it still has to feel like Planetside 2, only instead of the developers setting the layout of the base, the players will.

Mind you, outfits (or individual players) would be bidding on every lot: bases, towers, and those 1-2 hex outposts. After all, bases aren't the only things worth fighting over anymore.

I agree they will try and keep the feeling of the regular continents on the player one also .

But after you "bid" and win your city should it be open for attack 24/7 you could spend x amount of resources and loose it the same week/day/hour .

Is it a case of if you cant hold it you dont deserve it ? can your outfit or any outfit defend 24/7 ? .

[Rat]

I guess it all depends on how big this game gets, I see it like the EVE 0.0 station mechanics, where most dont really dont give a crap what is going on outside their boarders, but then again PS2 combat isnt going to have the cost/logistics nightmare that EVE has...all in all I think it would be awesome if each server had the player base to fully populate player owned and public continents.

[Littleman]

I agree they will try and keep the feeling of the regular continents on the player one also .

But after you "bid" and win your city should it be open for attack 24/7 you could spend x amount of resources and loose it the same week/day/hour .

Is it a case of if you cant hold it you dont deserve it ? can your outfit or any outfit defend 24/7 ? .

I would think it would be open 24/7 or a weekend event deal.

I'm skeptical on it costing resources to build structures, as a point system could be easily allocated to the specific territory for creating structures, like bases have 30 points, towers 15-20, and outposts 5-10. DISCLAIMER: ass-pull numbers.

Further, it doesn't necessarily have to take the resources we know exist, it could take contribution points gathered from players of the outfit, kind of like experience only it goes towards an outfit bank. Outfits would then bid on the lots with these points. It does favor the larger outfits in this way, but nothing should be stopping smaller outfits from saving up.

One thing I am interested in is a return investment for territory owners, so it's not just about placing their outfit emblem where the empire flag should be. That return shouldn't be contribution points, but maybe auraxium, or even all resources are generated from that territory. So an outfit could win a bid on a 1-2 hex territory that only supports an outpost, but they'll gain exclusive auraxium, alloy, polymer, and catalysts for every member of their guild, and possibly even (if a possibility) enhanced outfit-based cert accumulation, so they can sooner specialize in being the infantry outfit, or whatever suits their fancy.

EDIT: Though there would have to be public incentive to hold the territories belonging to another outfit. At this point, it can be very hard to balance what will and won't work to achieve that end. If bases are expensive to bid for, it might do the controlling outfit well to defend another outfits outposts and towers just to keep the enemy out of their base, but vice versa? Well, that's something we'll just have to wait and see play out.

[Maarvy]

I'm liking the outfit points idea , earned when a oufit member completes some objective maybe could favor the better guild rarther than the larger ones .

The thing with 24/7 vunerability in the past has been the always presant timezone problem and that it opens the door for cross time zone collaboration to take out enemy citys . Personaly I've never minded this and always prefered international servers and the need for alliances to protect things if need be . But it can be soul destroying to loose something hard earned at 4-5am to a force you have no chance to match .

[opticalshadow]

i think that if they do player conqureable bases it will be sililure to what darkfall did.

there will be "Plots" or territories that bases can be built on after a outfit can amass the needed resources to own it. then each structure or feature requires additinal resources. when it comes time to war, an outfit can invade and fight at any time, including destroying things. when it comes to captureing the base however the attacking outfit would need to make a payment in resources to make the attack (losing the resources if they fail to capture, thus preventing clans from just declareing war on each otehr over and over so the base could never be captured when they have no intetion to attack)

when the attack is declared a time is set, and theres a time limit in which the base must be defended/captured. after the time is expired teh base cannot be fought over for a period of 24 hr or so.

[Maarvy]

i think that if they do player conqureable bases it will be sililure to what darkfall did.

there will be "Plots" or territories that bases can be built on after a outfit can amass the needed resources to own it. then each structure or feature requires additinal resources. when it comes time to war, an outfit can invade and fight at any time, including destroying things. when it comes to captureing the base however the attacking outfit would need to make a payment in resources to make the attack (losing the resources if they fail to capture, thus preventing clans from just declareing war on each otehr over and over so the base could never be captured when they have no intetion to attack)

when the attack is declared a time is set, and theres a time limit in which the base must be defended/captured. after the time is expired teh base cannot be fought over for a period of 24 hr or so.

I want to hunt Wager holders again !! .

[opticalshadow]

I want to hunt Wager holders again !! .

never got that ability to run on all fours that us wolves were promised...

[Maarvy]

The problem with the Darkfall system was in the Early days it heavily favoured the attacker .

You would drop a siege and then 4 hours later the siege would become active , by the end we had this system down to a art form and the owners would have to attack there own city first in order to defend it .

Later with the longer delay and time set by the defender things were admitedly more fair however it lead to giant zerg sieges where every guild on the server was call in as a ally for one side or another . This made for some giant battles but in the end they were laggy affairs and one sige pretty much resembled the last and became boring .

[Reizod]

I think they may take the simple route of just having player/faction bases serve as a VR training area. Where weapons and items can be tested out without wasted resources.

[opticalshadow]

The problem with the Darkfall system was in the Early days it heavily favoured the attacker .

You would drop a siege and then 4 hours later the siege would become active , by the end we had this system down to a art form and the owners would have to attack there own city first in order to defend it .

Later with the longer delay and time set by the defender things were admitedly more fair however it lead to giant zerg sieges where every guild on the server was call in as a ally for one side or another . This made for some giant battles but in the end they were laggy affairs and one sige pretty much resembled the last and became boring .

yeah, the system was by no means perfect, it needed alot of work, but as far as base capture systems ina full pvp game goes, it has a strogn foundation to work off of. the mechanics were all tehre, there jus tneeded to be some adjustments.

ps2's natrual 3 faction system may help alot of that. soldiers who are in it for the battle would easily be rallied to help an attack or defence, and pop locks stop pure zergs (like the CotC did) alls they need is tweak the time period before battle starts, its duration and such

[Graf]

It would be cool if they had aphone app that would pop up saying "Your expensive base is under attack!" and stuff so you won't be blindsided when you get on by your base being captured.

[opticalshadow]

It would be cool if they had aphone app that would pop up saying "Your expensive base is under attack!" and stuff so you won't be blindsided when you get on by your base being captured.

they already are making android/iphone apps that will have a realtime map and such, which would let you see if your base is under attack. id imagine it wouldnt be hard to set an alert up in the app so when your not paying attention youll know.

[Marinealver]

I think what it is is you got the base zones sort as the Tech Plant or Biolab whici is only 3or 4 hexs wide (sort of like a soi) then you got the "wilderness" zones where there are towers or bunkers or some sort of fwd garrson base scattered throug the teritory each with their own capture spot so when you get one or more in the teritory the tics go up in that area and you can capture the wilderness areas.

[Klockan]

Am I the only one who think that the bases wont be owned by players, just built by players? As in you build and fortify the base for the faction and just like the frontline it will probably be different the next time you login. Player owned bases doesn't really work in PS2 unless they make continents which are FFA.

[Gugabalog]

This gave me a craving for some player built continent trench warfare.

Think about a line of cover that spans across the entire landmass with defenesive strongpoints and everything!

Of course this would be breached all the damn time due to tanks and aircraft.

[opticalshadow]

Am I the only one who think that the bases wont be owned by players, just built by players? As in you build and fortify the base for the faction and just like the frontline it will probably be different the next time you login. Player owned bases doesn't really work in PS2 unless they make continents which are FFA.

make a continent, on that cont we could have teh same number of territories as regulard continents have bases, saem size and all. when an outfit comes to a point and lets say theres no owner, they pay [x] outfit points to claim it, once claimed structures and features can be built/bought using outfit points. the base itself could require daily outfit points aswell (just so an outfit has to ativily keep a flow of points so they cant just inifnitly camp.

each base can be challanged by an opsosing factions outfit, it costs [x] outfit points to do so, if they lose the challange, they gain nothing and lose the points spent, if they win the base is demo'd, and they now have the territory to build on.

building off that you would have a system that i think would work well.

[AzureWatcher]

This gave me a craving for some player built continent trench warfare.

Think about a line of cover that spans across the entire landmass with defenesive strongpoints and everything!

Of course this would be breached all the damn time due to tanks and aircraft.

The Rebels learned that the hard way on Hoth.

--

I hope that the player bases are build by outfits, and instead of the faction logo that shows up on the banners the Outfit's symbol is shown on a red/blue/purple background depending on which faction they are.

[Klockan]

make a continent, on that cont we could have teh same number of territories as regulard continents have bases, saem size and all. when an outfit comes to a point and lets say theres no owner, they pay [x] outfit points to claim it, once claimed structures and features can be built/bought using outfit points. the base itself could require daily outfit points aswell (just so an outfit has to ativily keep a flow of points so they cant just inifnitly camp.

each base can be challanged by an opsosing factions outfit, it costs [x] outfit points to do so, if they lose the challange, they gain nothing and lose the points spent, if they win the base is demo'd, and they now have the territory to build on.

building off that you would have a system that i think would work well.
No, that system would suck since it would mean that you gain something by letting your enemy take an allied outfits bases since the only way a strip of land will open up is for the opposing faction to take it. So basically you would only have individual outfits fight each other on that continent and it would all get extremely dull since you can't take over anything without formal challenges which means that the whole continent would be dead most of the time.

PS2 don't work with player owned bases unless owning a base doesn't give you any benefits at all in which case it isn't really player owned. Nothing would kill the continent quicker than forcing people to make formal challenges before attacking.

[Syphus]

This gave me a craving for some player built continent trench warfare.

Think about a line of cover that spans across the entire landmass with defenesive strongpoints and everything!

Of course this would be breached all the damn time due to tanks and aircraft.

Trenches would be as pointless in Planetside as they were in WW2.

[Gugabalog]

Trenches would be as pointless in Planetside as they were in WW2.

It was a half-joke and the flaw you pointed out was already recognized in the original post. Read the whole thing before jerking your knee.

[Syphus]

It was a half-joke and the flaw you pointed out was already recognized in the original post. Read the whole thing before jerking your knee.

"breached" and "utterly pointless" are not the same thing. You should perhaps understand what a synonym was before you try and be internet cool.

[Gugabalog]

"breached" and "utterly pointless" are not the same thing. You should perhaps understand what a synonym was before you try and be internet cool.

And utterly pointless is not the same thing devoid of fun and shits and giggles.

[opticalshadow]

No, that system would suck since it would mean that you gain something by letting your enemy take an allied outfits bases since the only way a strip of land will open up is for the opposing faction to take it. So basically you would only have individual outfits fight each other on that continent and it would all get extremely dull since you can't take over anything without formal challenges which means that the whole continent would be dead most of the time.

PS2 don't work with player owned bases unless owning a base doesn't give you any benefits at all in which case it isn't really player owned. Nothing would kill the continent quicker than forcing people to make formal challenges before attacking.

i suggested a baselien that worked sucessfully in another game, they could be doing that. likely they have their own plans, since they brought it up. higby already said they were going to happen, players would be able to at some level construct features, and that they would be on their own landmass.

they arent going to budge on the details, my idea isnt a terrible idea, you could alter a bit of it to make it work. you could make all bases generate resources makeing them like a normal base, you can make them hackable so an enemy could take them like any other base, and the territory only changes outfit when a challenge occurs. if the enemy faction owns the surrounding territory when a challenge is dropped, it will obviously be much harder to defend it. making battle their importent, because not only does your empire need to hold territories, but if they dont hold the land, theyll lose ownership. bonouses can be given to the faction who owns the most territory.

so you get both, standared play, with an outfit level of customization that makes the game play more rewarding for everyone. after all wouldnt you like to not only lock the enemy empire off a cont, but hold in your posession bases specifically built and funded by your enemies bigest assests?

thats bragging rights.

[Klockan]

i suggested a baselien that worked sucessfully in another game, they could be doing that. likely they have their own plans, since they brought it up. higby already said they were going to happen, players would be able to at some level construct features, and that they would be on their own landmass.
They never said that people would own bases, only that people would build bases. Of course I can be wrong but I don't really see how a continent with player owned bases would be a hit. Those games you are talking about where mmorpgs which means that you could do many other things in the game than fight for territory, I know I have played them, also those games didn't have forced factional warfare (aka you had a ffa). This is Planetside so you got nothing else to do, that system wont work here, they wont make a continent that will be void of players most of the time.

[Novice bot]

They never said that people would own bases, only that people would build bases. Of course I can be wrong but I don't really see how a continent with player owned bases would be a hit. Those games you are talking about where mmorpgs which means that you could do many other things in the game than fight for territory, I know I have played them, also those games didn't have forced factional warfare (aka you had a ffa). This is Planetside so you got nothing else to do, that system wont work here.

I don't see how it /wouldn't/ work here. Even if it isn't FFA, there's still two factions to fight against. So the only thing is that you have few hard coded allies, and what of it?

[Klockan]

I don't see how it /wouldn't/ work here. Even if it isn't FFA, there's still two factions to fight against. So the only thing is that you have few hard coded allies, and what of it?
You can still attack your allies, only you have to do it indirectly by helping the enemies assaulting them. Once your enemies have taken the base you can now try to take it back and suddenly you are the owner. Friendly fire is still on so they should be able to do a lot of damage to the defenders. Individuals should never earn anything for shooting their allies. Hard coded allies doesn't work the same way player generated allies do. If soe adds anything that can make the factions want to turn against each other they are making an extremely bad move.

Also if the bases are invulnerable most of the time unless an outfit challenges them why would anyone be on that continent that isn't in an outfit? Why would the outfits be on that continent during the period they can't challenge anything? So the continent would pretty much be dead. Why would they make a dead continent?

[Novice bot]

You can still attack your allies, only you have to do it indirectly by helping the enemies assaulting them. Once your enemies have taken the base you can now try to take it back and suddenly you are the owner. Friendly fire is still on so they should be able to do a lot of damage to the defenders. Individuals should never earn anything for shooting their allies. Hard coded allies doesn't work the same way player generated allies do. If soe adds anything that can make the factions want to turn against each other they are making an extremely bad move.

Also if the bases are invulnerable most of the time unless an outfit challenges them why would anyone be on that continent that isn't in an outfit? Why would the outfits be on that continent during the period they can't challenge anything? So the continent would pretty much be dead. Why would they make a dead continent?

You're such a keynesian...
Simple equation, too much exaggeration, ignoring the capability of human action & motivation. Let me school you with a simple session. (Love that song).

It's all about freedom of choice and consequences that it causes. Let's take clans A, B, C, D. Lets say they are TR. Clans Z,D,Y are Vanu. Let's say Z attacks A, clan B realizes their chance to get the base of A, which they want. Now, B claims to assist A, but suddenly, friendly fire everywhere. How do you think A will react?`They will assault B without consent. No matter the outcome, what do you think is the reaction of C & D, who are of same faction when clan A tells that B assisted clan Z? B's freaking doomed. Traitors can't hold a base much when their noses are six-feet under 24/7.

About the dead continent? That's easy. Hotspots, smack enough faction based outposts and resource locations capturable 24/7. That encourages people on the continent. What would be the difference? The resources are prioritized between the clans of faction that possess an outpost on the continent. It might promote inner struggles, but MMORPG politics, they are such an complicated issue, still, one thing for certain. Betray your hard coded alliance, and you're getting bounded off the server.

Now, you got schooled by my Finnish perspective.

[Klockan]

You're such a keynesian...
Simple equation, too much exaggeration, ignoring the capability of human action & motivation. Let me school you with a simple session. (Love that song).

It's all about freedom of choice and consequences that it causes. Let's take clans A, B, C, D. Lets say they are TR. Clans Z,D,Y are Vanu. Let's say Z attacks A, clan B realizes their chance to get the base of A, which they want. Now, B claims to assist A, but suddenly, friendly fire everywhere. How do you think A will react?`They will assault B without consent. No matter the outcome, what do you think is the reaction of C & D, who are of same faction when clan A tells that B assisted clan Z? B's freaking doomed. Traitors can't hold a base much when their noses are six-feet under 24/7.

About the dead continent? That's easy. Hotspots, smack enough faction based outposts and resource locations capturable 24/7. That encourages people on the continent. What would be the difference? The resources are prioritized between the clans of faction that possess an outpost on the continent. It might promote inner struggles, but MMORPG politics, they are such an complicated issue, still, one thing for certain. Betray your hard coded alliance, and you're getting bounded off the server.

Now, you got schooled by my Finnish perspective.
No matter what you say intrafactional warfare will be promoted with that system and it will happen on every server. On some servers the purists might win like in your scenario, but on others they will get overrun by people gaming the system. No matter what it is a bad scenario, you don't want Navu to hate the Navu, you want them to hate the TR and the NC. As soon as you make people compete about resources within the faction then you destroy the sacred faction rivalry that Planet Side has built up and replace it with outfit rivalry.

Edit: Also making bases rare by having most bases being normal bases and only a few outfit owned would only make the issue worse.

[getembees]

I imagine that if outfit-owned bases did exist, that it would create an incentive to establish large outfits, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I imagine the largest outfits will boast how long it has been since their base has been captured. "Welcome to Outfit HQ, this base has been Vanu since launch". But not all outfits can run a 24/7 defensive operation. Luckily, the mission system will take care of this. During off hours other players will be directed to your base if it comes under attack.

Perhaps incentives should be given to outfits who take bases near the front lines. Should your outfit play it safe and keep their modest biodome in the country, or should they trade it in for the honor, prestige, (and experience boost) that comes with the crystal refinery that just opened up next to the TR tank factory? I guess it depends on whether or not your outfit thinks the risk is worth the benefit. But are you mortals or rebirthers? On Auraxis you go big or go home!

If you lose the base your outfit spent big money on the very next day, well that's life on Auraxis for you. Luckily with rebirth comes honor and rivalry. You'll live to fight another day, soldier. I imagine your outfit will be working double time to get its home barracks back come tomorrow (maybe bonuses for retaking home base quickly).

Like in sports, outfits may grow to form intense rivalries. I imagine the outfits organizing huge galaxy and liberator flotillas in order to capture the home base of a rival outfit deep behind enemy lines. Other outfits scratch their heads as a cloud of Gals heads off on what is essentially a one-way trip. But who knows, your outfit might plow a path right to the enemy warpgate. You'll have honor, extra funds, and you might even get your picture on the front page of PSU!

http://sydlexia.com/imagesandstuff/bullshit_nes_endings/paperboy.png

[SpottyGekko]

One way to keep the "NPC continents" in play would be to grant resources to a player-owned base by counting how many NPC bases were controlled by the player-outfit's faction.

So if your faction loses too many bases, your player-owned base becomes very expensive to maintain. That way, outfits will still be motivated to join battles on the NPC continents.

There also needs to be some way of limiting how many structures can be owned by a single outfit. Otherwise "Mega-Zerg-Outfit" could end up controlling all of the base locations on a player-owned continent.

[Sunrock]

Player owned continent and bases in 3 year plan ?

Im curious what the PSU comunity takes on this , having played a number of mmos with player built assets and full conquest I know there's a world of differance between a in game base and a player owned one .

Lets assume ( I know we shouldnt ) that these player owned bases will take some considerable resources to construct .

Would you want these Base's to be vunerable 24/7 , limited to server prime time or some other method , maybe you just want a safe zone to epeen your guild name .

Should it require to special cost or skill to take your hard earned pixel fortress or should any johnny be able to hack your base ? .

How do you think it a player owned continent could effect the game in general , will the other continents become neglected ? will the game loose players as the players loose pixels ? .

Well I have played several different games where the players can build there own PvP bases and defend them. I really like the idea behind it because you get a deeper attachment to it as you have put in time and resources to build it.

I prefer when you can set the time when the base is vonurable your self but you are forced to put up minimum 4 dates during a week for an example.

However player owned continents in PS2.... no I don't think that would be as good idea

[opticalshadow]

They never said that people would own bases, only that people would build bases. Of course I can be wrong but I don't really see how a continent with player owned bases would be a hit. Those games you are talking about where mmorpgs which means that you could do many other things in the game than fight for territory, I know I have played them, also those games didn't have forced factional warfare (aka you had a ffa). This is Planetside so you got nothing else to do, that system wont work here, they wont make a continent that will be void of players most of the time.

qoute the rest of my post, and i explain plainly how my idea worked.

you make it function as a regular continent, you make the bases player buiilt and outfit owned, and transferable though certian tides of battle. if anything it would encourage more players to be on it, because if your faction loses land, then it gives enemy outfits teh ability to easily transfer the bases, and give their empire all the benifits of having the base belong to one of its outfits.

players in planetside one, wanted for years just to have the conqureing clans emblem displayed in the halls, we fought for HOURS over towers that ultimatly didnt do much for us once captured.

you give them the ability to design and haev their outfits name on a base, and fight to protect that, and youll get a bigger reaction out of them. if theres one thing i know from playing games, is gamers tend to get big egos, lots of pride. and you can bet that if TRG's dropship center was in enemy hands wed rally our might to take it back, and you can bet if it was being challenged for demolish, wed call in every ally and launch a full all out assult.

make the benifits for owning a base empire wide, the outfits that built them can have smaller benifits or none at all, most would relish at just having their name on the map, with thousands of players to envy.

[Crator]

make the benifits for owning a base empire wide, the outfits that built them can have smaller benifits or none at all, most would relish at just having their name on the map, with thousands of players to envy.

That right there is key imo...

[Klockan]

qoute the rest of my post, and i explain plainly how my idea worked.

you make it function as a regular continent, you make the bases player buiilt and outfit owned, and transferable though certian tides of battle. if anything it would encourage more players to be on it, because if your faction loses land, then it gives enemy outfits teh ability to easily transfer the bases, and give their empire all the benifits of having the base belong to one of its outfits.

players in planetside one, wanted for years just to have the conqureing clans emblem displayed in the halls, we fought for HOURS over towers that ultimatly didnt do much for us once captured.

you give them the ability to design and haev their outfits name on a base, and fight to protect that, and youll get a bigger reaction out of them. if theres one thing i know from playing games, is gamers tend to get big egos, lots of pride. and you can bet that if TRG's dropship center was in enemy hands wed rally our might to take it back, and you can bet if it was being challenged for demolish, wed call in every ally and launch a full all out assult.

make the benifits for owning a base empire wide, the outfits that built them can have smaller benifits or none at all, most would relish at just having their name on the map, with thousands of players to envy.
How would this avoid the issues I talked about? That envy will destroy this idea since it will encourage people to backstab their teammates. People care way more about fame than ingame bonuses and to a large part of the population infamy goes just as well.

[opticalshadow]

How would this avoid the issues I talked about? That envy will destroy this idea since it will encourage people to backstab their teammates. People care way more about fame than ingame bonuses and to a large part of the population infamy goes just as well.

the scale in which you would need to be backstabbed would be so great i doubt it could happen.

you would have to have the entire [pop of you empire against you, 666 (as of current) players who are on that land mass would have to ignroe combat in a major contested area, let the enemy take the territory, then they would have to continue standing by to do nothing while that territory then gets challenged, then they would have to let the enemy set up a enw base and then thats when they have to fight to take teh territory then contest it themselves (in spite of thousands of otehr clans who would)


its extreamly unlikely you would have any amount of players who could do that. for the backstab youw ould need, on two seperate occasions the majority of the continenets population to say NO to fighting in a major battle on that landmass, then put themselves at a disadvantage for a period of time so that they might have any chance at all of it paying off.

let them try, honestly im sure there will be players who get envious of their teammates, but to actualyl sabatoge teh efforts of your empire for that one base, would be near impossible. even if 6k players said fuck TR1, there are thousands more who simply just want to fight. and thats the thing. there are so many players, that the only way to sabatoge this is to have the vast majority of your empire on the cont log into it, and stand around and do absolutly nothing.

and i think the devs would have a problem with that amount of afkers.

[Klockan]

the scale in which you would need to be backstabbed would be so great i doubt it could happen.

you would have to have the entire [pop of you empire against you, 666 (as of current) players who are on that land mass would have to ignroe combat in a major contested area, let the enemy take the territory, then they would have to continue standing by to do nothing while that territory then gets challenged, then they would have to let the enemy set up a enw base and then thats when they have to fight to take teh territory then contest it themselves (in spite of thousands of otehr clans who would)
It is enough that a large outfit is against you to ruin the balance. If the large outfit got 100 members then it is them + all the enemies against you, then you will lose the base. Even a small corp of lets say 20 members would probably ruin your defense completely if the enemy have even the slightest bit of competence.

Also you just ruined peoples loyalty to the faction when you gave corporations vanity items to fight for. Most would rather see themselves having 1 corp base and every other base being owned by the enemies than no corp base with a fair split between the factions. Most likely you have that preference as well.

let them try, honestly im sure there will be players who get envious of their teammates, but to actualyl sabatoge teh efforts of your empire for that one base, would be near impossible. even if 6k players said fuck TR1, there are thousands more who simply just want to fight. and thats the thing. there are so many players, that the only way to sabatoge this is to have the vast majority of your empire on the cont log into it, and stand around and do absolutly nothing.

and i think the devs would have a problem with that amount of afkers.
Who wants to help others stay in the spotlight? No, people wouldn't afk, they would attack other corp bases instead. The base trade would benefit both factions except for the current owners.

[Ohaunlaim]

Instead of one outfit owning entire bases/zones with the prestige/ego/envy that would result...

How about having outfits invest in bases/zones by purchasing and placing out-buildings/bunkers/towers/etc. Thus zones can be boosted by purchases from multiple outfits to the benefit of all. No rivalries, only cooperation.

If the area is lost to the enemy their outfits can claim the enemy outfit buildings for their own by purchasing them away from the enemy outfits (which would take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is re-captured all buildings revert back to original owners and purchases are canceled.

Any outfit that owns a building can deconstruct it (which would also take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is captured during this time deconstruction is canceled.

[Klockan]

Instead of one outfit owning entire bases/zones with the prestige/ego/envy that would result...

How about having outfits invest in bases/zones by purchasing and placing out-buildings/bunkers/towers/etc. Thus zones can be boosted by purchases from multiple outfits to the benefit of all. No rivalries, only cooperation.

If the area is lost to the enemy their outfits can claim the enemy outfit buildings for their own by purchasing them away from the enemy outfits (which would take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is re-captured all buildings revert back to original owners and purchases are canceled.

Any outfit that owns a building can deconstruct it (which would also take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is captured during this time deconstruction is canceled.
That was kinda my point, player built bases but not player owned bases. They could make building bases require ANT runs, so you could have corps specifically made to build and fortify all the bases. It would feel like your bases even if they weren't yours on paper, the pride would still be there but your logo just wouldn't be on the map, people would still know that you built them but they will feel no need to tear it down since for them there is no difference if you built them or they built them.

This is kinda like capturing bases on normal continents, do the map show a big flag of which corp captured it? No. But if your corp did the work then the server will know anyway. You don't need to give any more incentives, people will build bases even if they might get destroyed during the night and even if there is no marker showing that the base is theirs. Such things only cause unnecessary envy.

[Sunrock]

Instead of one outfit owning entire bases/zones with the prestige/ego/envy that would result...

How about having outfits invest in bases/zones by purchasing and placing out-buildings/bunkers/towers/etc. Thus zones can be boosted by purchases from multiple outfits to the benefit of all. No rivalries, only cooperation.

If the area is lost to the enemy their outfits can claim the enemy outfit buildings for their own by purchasing them away from the enemy outfits (which would take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is re-captured all buildings revert back to original owners and purchases are canceled.

Any outfit that owns a building can deconstruct it (which would also take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is captured during this time deconstruction is canceled.

Well prestige/ego/envy is a good motivation in any PvP game. Especially when its a group kind of prestige/ego/envy. So I don't see anything wrong with that.

But I don't think it would be a good idea that a capturing outfit could take over something some one else build. The attackers raze it to the ground and then the capturing outfit should be able to build something new on top of the old.

[Maarvy]

Instead of one outfit owning entire bases/zones with the prestige/ego/envy that would result...

How about having outfits invest in bases/zones by purchasing and placing out-buildings/bunkers/towers/etc. Thus zones can be boosted by purchases from multiple outfits to the benefit of all. No rivalries, only cooperation.

If the area is lost to the enemy their outfits can claim the enemy outfit buildings for their own by purchasing them away from the enemy outfits (which would take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is re-captured all buildings revert back to original owners and purchases are canceled.

Any outfit that owns a building can deconstruct it (which would also take 24 hours or so to complete). If the area is captured during this time deconstruction is canceled.

Heres a cool little idea which could run on the main continents along side a fully playerowned continent or on its own , although having the outbuildings sold and bought with a possible rollback feature is bound to be rought with problems , better to just have them captured somehow imo .

[Klockan]

Well prestige/ego/envy is a good motivation in any PvP game. Especially when its a group kind of prestige/ego/envy. So I don't see anything wrong with that.
Would you think that it would be a good idea to show which outfit helped the most with taking each base on the normal maps? It is essentially the same thing but I think that most would be against that since it would lead to lots of foul play when you try to put your own name on all the hexes.

Also why would building bases be a privilege of the few? People love building stuff, there is no need to give any extra prestige or incentives with it. "Make it hard to build stuff and hard to tear down, also make it so only top players can do it" is a terrible idea. Better to make it easy to build and easy to tear down and allow everyone to do it. The fun part isn't having things after you built them, the fun part is when you actually build it.

[Maarvy]

Well prestige/ego/envy is a good motivation in any PvP game. Especially when its a group kind of prestige/ego/envy. So I don't see anything wrong with that.

But I don't think it would be a good idea that a capturing outfit could take over something some one else build. The attackers raze it to the ground and then the capturing outfit should be able to build something new on top of the old.

Why not choose , If I take X outfits tech lab and thats usefull to me then fine but if it serves a better purpose for my outfit we can bring in the bulldozers and change it up .

[Kipper]

I don't really see any system working where all bases aren't open for attack 24/7 - that's fine for other sandbox games but not for shooter like this where the object is to kill enemies and take territory. I want to be able to try and capture stuff from the minute I log on to the minute I log off. Strategy is done real time.

So the way I'd see player structures working is that an outfit can 'adopt' a friendly hex. Maybe this is decided on a resource bidding system, as there will be more outfits than hexes.

Once adopted, the owners can then direct what structures get built and where - empty hexes just get the option for bunkers and turret type structures, towers would be able to build air/veh pads and slightly bigger stuff, and full base hexes would be able to build more.

To construct costs some resources and/or takes time - the more you pledge, the quicker it goes up.

Aside from directing what gets built and where - and having your emblem shown, it just functions like a normal base and is open to allies for use (maybe generating outfit xp) and generates outfit resources on top of team resources, and can be attacked and taken at any time.

Built structures remain unless destroyed in battle, but a new owner can deconstruct them to put up their own stuff in that spot. Empire specific stuff like turrets have to be deconstructed and won't work for opposing factions.

How's that?

[Maarvy]

I don't really see any system working where all bases aren't open for attack 24/7 - that's fine for other sandbox games but not for shooter like this where the object is to kill enemies and take territory. I want to be able to try and capture stuff from the minute I log on to the minute I log off. Strategy is done real time.

So the way I'd see player structures working is that an outfit can 'adopt' a friendly hex. Maybe this is decided on a resource bidding system, as there will be more outfits than hexes.

Once adopted, the owners can then direct what structures get built and where - empty hexes just get the option for bunkers and turret type structures, towers would be able to build air/veh pads and slightly bigger stuff, and full base hexes would be able to build more.

To construct costs some resources and/or takes time - the more you pledge, the quicker it goes up.

Aside from directing what gets built and where - and having your emblem shown, it just functions like a normal base and is open to allies for use (maybe generating outfit xp) and generates outfit resources on top of team resources, and can be attacked and taken at any time.

Built structures remain unless destroyed in battle, but a new owner can deconstruct them to put up their own stuff in that spot. Empire specific stuff like turrets have to be deconstructed and won't work for opposing factions.

How's that?

Interesting and a really nice way to enable the zones to change hands within a faction smoothly .

Would you want the bidding to come from the regular resource's pool or some separate outfit exp/resource pool ?

[Ivam Akorahil]

I guess it all depends on how big this game gets, I see it like the EVE 0.0 station mechanics, where most dont really dont give a crap what is going on outside their boarders, but then again PS2 combat isnt going to have the cost/logistics nightmare that EVE has...all in all I think it would be awesome if each server had the player base to fully populate player owned and public continents.

you never know, i hope it would become more complex, just like ev went from extremel complex to fitting in fps elemnts and chars now, i wouldnt mind having ps2 start off with fps elements and developing alot more complexity into it, that requires resource management, manufacturing etc etc etc

[Sunrock]

Why not choose , If I take X outfits tech lab and thats usefull to me then fine but if it serves a better purpose for my outfit we can bring in the bulldozers and change it up .

I understand that but its more of a game balance issue. If you allow players to take over things it might be less time/resource consuming then building it.

And if it takes the same amount of time/resources to take over a player built structure I think the time/resources is to high to take over an object and to low to build an object.

IMO it should take at least a couple of IRL days to build a structure.

[Maarvy]

I understand that but its more of a game balance issue. If you allow players to take over things it might be less time/resource consuming then building it.

And if it takes the same amount of time/resources to take over a player built structure I think the time/resources is to high to take over an object and to low to build an object.

IMO it should take at least a couple of IRL days to build a structure.

In a world inhabited by people made of nanites , where air craft and tanks pop in to being in the flash of a eye you think a structure should take days to construct ?

[Kipper]

Would you want the bidding to come from the regular resource's pool or some separate outfit exp/resource pool ?

Actually outfit XP would be nice - maybe with a tax system to say how much personal XP is donated to the outfit? That would make it more viable for high BR outfits to run the bases as you'd expect, a the cost of slower individual progression - but highly skilled outfits even more, as thy generate much more xp and could afford to donate more to their outfit. Maybe individuals set ther own donation rates so that newbies can still advance BR at a good rate to catch up?

Structures would be built from resources, I think - meaning you still have to play for the faction because your base would only receive a bonus to what the entire faction is getting from all hexes.

Outfit XP would be a good way to adopt the base because unless you hold it for a good while, you're less likely to be able to buy it straight back giving other outfits a chance rather than friendly bases always being owned by the same groups.

[Sunrock]

In a world inhabited by people made of nanites , where air craft and tanks pop in to being in the flash of a eye you think a structure should take days to construct ?

Well thats how it have works in other PvP games I have played that have had that features. In fact it have taken several weeks to get the buildings to the highest tiers.

This way it would be a prestige thing for a outfit to manage to build and hold one because you cant just pop one out when ever you feel like it.

[Gugabalog]

Such a huge pet peeve....

People are not MADE of nanites they're ASSEMBLED BY nanites.

[Maarvy]

In shadowbane you could place citys anywhere restricted by number per sone and proximity to pve areas , building took 12-24 hours to construct , many needed to be ranked to 7 which too a week or so .

In Darkfall the building's built instantly as within 30 seconds clicking there icon with enough resources in your bag . ranking too was just a matter of having the resources .

However both were fantasy based mmos how much of a example to take from either one is debatable .

I think in a planetside setting just a cost is enough it does take time to accrue such wealth too afford such a mighty fortress anyway right ? .

Such a huge pet peeve....

People are not MADE of nanites they're ASSEMBLED BY nanites.

Your FACE was ASSembled by nanites

[Gugabalog]

If I was in planetside, it would be.

[Graf]

:rofl: You guys are too much!

In my opinion constructing bases should be a huge deal. It needs to be important to the player, and they need to invest lots of time and money. But it is debatable that things are built very fast in PS2 due to nanites. What if we forced the player to invest time not by having a huge cooldown, or by making it take forever to build, but by forcing the player to design the base to ever last detail. That force the player to become invested in time, money, and (I daresay) emotion. Not sure of how they would design the base, but I am sure we can figure something out, like a super dumbed down CAD thingy, or perhapes a SPORE like system of customization.

[Kipper]

If it was a huge deal then given the speed at which it could be lost to the other faction - it wouldn't be worth doing.

I'm thinking that the area should have a number of 'hard points' on which buildings or structures of a fixed design could be added in a choice of angles - That would be easier to integrate into the game than a CAD system and the potential for bugs/exploiting/crap bases that could bring.

Structures could be one of:
defensive - walls, turrets, bunkers etc.
support - vehicle pads and repairs etc
Resource collection - increase yield of resource types or xp for outfit or faction members; or unlock certain weapon types/modules.

If each structure had a choice of several designs that locked together like Lego, you could have great looking, but individually designed bases that are quick & easy to design, while limited hard points means you have to sacrifice one thing for the other - so all out defence gets no resource bonus, or all out resource is hard to defend etc.

Also, this is still a shooter. You want people on the map fighting, not decorating their houses in minute detail - that's for slower paced games. Setting up bases should be a quick thing.

[Gugabalog]

Also, this is still a shooter. You want people on the map fighting, not decorating their houses in minute detail - that's for slower paced games. Setting up bases should be a quick thing.

Not if you want the bases to have meaning, i.e. "This is OUR base!"

[opticalshadow]

Also, this is still a shooter. You want people on the map fighting, not decorating their houses in minute detail - that's for slower paced games. Setting up bases should be a quick thing.

as long as ps2 contains giraffe pants, i jsut cannot accepting the arguement that i cant decorate my base because its a shooter.

[Sunrock]

If it was a huge deal then given the speed at which it could be lost to the other faction - it wouldn't be worth doing.

That is exactly way it would be worth doing. Say that it takes 3 weeks to gather resources and build a base and the other factions could in theory destroy it in 3 minutes would be the reason way it would be fun to build one.

Because if you build a base and hold on to it for several weeks or months you show the world that your outfit is damned good at defending bases.

This would mean only the best outfits would be able to do this.

[Miniman]

Not overly keen on this. It's supposed to be your faction you are fighting for, not your outfit. Dont want squabbles happening amongst the empire, cr5 chat was bad enough. And most outfits members are geographically close, meaning all anyone has to do to take the base would be to log on at an odd time. I certainly wont be heading to some high and mighty outfits base to defend it for them if that happened.

And also, that outfit is seriously going to neglect the real fight - the frontlines. Maybe have a small building in the Sanc (or the equivelant) for outfits to create and use

[Ohaunlaim]

Let me expand on what I said earlier.

Nobody owns bases or such because bases are empire owned like on existing continents. The "empty" continent shouldn't actually be totally empty when it opens. Zones should be predetermined and generic bases should exist. By generic I mean a tech plant, for example, should consist of the central main tech facility and lone buildings housing other capture points. There wouldn't be any bunkers, out buildings, major walls, gated walls, minor walls, major towers, minor towers, extra spawn/equipment sites, etc. and would feel pretty empty at first.

These later, at various costs, could be purchased by outfits and can be placed in limited locations (so you don't get towers everywhere or random walls serving no purpose but to grief everyone). I see no problem having outfit emblems and/or mottoes posted in the purchased building.

There would be no inter-empire griefing because nobody can destroy or sell anybody else's buildings and, since building locations are predetermined by the devs, poor placement shouldn't be an issue. Extra-empire griefing (by purchasing enemy buildings) is fine and, with a 24hr purchase timer, can be stopped. Giving incentive to win back, or hold, a territory with extreme prejudice.

There should be no destruction of buildings, simply to maintain consistency with the other indestructible buildings on other continents. Although deconstruction sounds fine.

As for the construction time debate. I think Having that shiznit drop down from orbit a short time (30 sec or so) after purchase is fine. Its all made up in orbit and just waiting for field commanders to determine where it would best be used...

Outfit points as PS1 had should be the currency of choice.

[Kipper]

as long as ps2 contains giraffe pants, i jsut cannot accepting the arguement that i cant decorate my base because its a shooter.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to because I don't want you to be able to - I'm saying that there'd be absolutely no point.

You spend an hour putting your zebra cushions in the living area and getting them 'just so' and then one of the enemy factions comes along, steamrollers your base, takes the entire thing apart - boom - an hour wasted.

Something that can be destroyed in minutes should be buildable(designable) in minutes, that's what I'm saying.