Clan System Discussion

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:03 pm

Have been talking to various evochronians over the last week or so, and the clan system has come up quite a bit. Thought I'd start a post so we could get our ideas in one place and get a discussion going.

I'll start with

1) A station counter to keep track of clan stations

2) In absence of above, limiting where stations can be built on the Y axis, thus hidden stations won't be lost. As is, we often cant find our own stations, much less those from long defunct clans.

3) A separate station limit for clan and non-clan tagged stations, so that non-affiliated players won't hit the station limit and be a) confused, or b) penalized by activities they aren't participating in.

more to come. For now, go nuts!

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:29 pm

Thats a good start!

GORF · Post by **GORF** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:34 pm

I would like to see.....

1 New clan "charter system" , new clan's to be voted in or approved ,or something enabled to keep new clans from just poping up . I feel the need for new clans should be based on the amount of current players .

2 Removeing or adding clan tagged stations should only be allowed by the clan holding a certain % of control over the system to be built in.

3 The amount of stations needed to reduce decay should be lowered, also haveing a clan based limit and player based station limit to avoid new players from not being able to build stations in clan held ter.

THanks

GORF

[Edited on 6-16-2011 by GORF]

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:51 pm

great suggestions Gorf, I particularly like one of them.

Post by **Vice** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:53 pm

Both a counter and further restriction on SY are possible (right now a message is displayed when the limit is reached which can be counted back from and the SY limits are +/- 250).

As for the station limits, it was already reduced to 50 per 250X250X250 region of space. I could take it to 25 or even 10, if desired, but that would greatly limit available building space further, countering the player/clan building option.

One thing players seem to be running into fairly frequently are legacy stations. Many were built before the limits were applied and are now still effecting various major regions. We had talked about it before, but perhaps now is a good time to revisit this. Should the game's universe have most or all stations removed to start the process over and clean out the impact of older pre-limited stations? The clearing could also be time based, removing any station that was built more than 2 weeks ago (or some other time period).

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:27 pm

There are still many "stacked stations" out there that do not allow docking.
If we get rid of all of those, it might allow for more station building.

SeeJay · Post by **SeeJay** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:37 pm

I vote for reduced amount of stations to 10 for having control of a system.

I don't have many stations at the time, so naturally I also vote for a cleaning of
stations. As Vice said with a date as a reference would work nicelly.

This might not be fair to those that have build a lot thou, but I vote for it anyway. (Sorry);)

If I understand the system correctly, it's only the trade stations that are limited to 50 as for now.
The stacked stations will only reduce the amount by 1, even if all stations in the stack is removed.

Post by **Marvin** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:38 pm

I have lots of stations and spent a ton of credits building them. But I'm all for starting over. Especially if the number of stations are reduced. 12 would be nice ... makes for a very pretty circle. But less is also good.

SeeJay · Post by **SeeJay** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:58 am

I'm a little confused over the discussion in another thread about changing to factions (A, F, V)
or whatever it was. That means there will be no more clans as we have now!?

I don't really like that idea. I would prefer that we have clans as we do now and
might limit them amount of clans as Gorf suggested further up.
How we are going to limit it I don't really know. The great thing with this
game is that if you don't like any of the existing clans or just don't want to join, you could
start your own.

soulsacrifice · Post by **soulsacrifice** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:57 pm

Limiting clans or having to get new clans approved seems to go against the whole free-form nature of the game. If I had just got the game and had to get a clan approved or join an existing one I don't think I would bother, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would be put off by this.

What's wrong with new or small clans popping up? I actually like this and would not want to see any limits. If the problem is too many stations then it should be the availability of stations that's looked at. I don't mind stations getting deleted after 2 weeks but I also think there should be a limited number of permanent stations available to place as at times people will not get to play for over 2 weeks.

I think it would also be of great help if when you placed a station it could automatically add the station name and coordinates to your log. I log my stations anyway but it is time consuming and this would be a really easy way to help people keep better track of their stations.

Sinbad · Post by **Sinbad** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:39 pm

Ive been following this discussion about clan stations with some interest... I can see the reasoning behind the need to remove legacy stations that are no longer in use, and I support the concept. However the thought of stations just vanishing as if by magic after some period of time sort of takes away a bit of the realism of the game. I know there are many things that simply aren't realistic in the game but I do like the idea of stumbling across long-forgot stations out in the depths of space that have been abandonded by Clans.

To address (at least some of) the problems raised in the previous posts I suggest another idea: Instead of just disappearing after some period of inactiviy, stations could become derelict. Thier influence on Clan territory decay rate could be removed and also thier effect on station number limit. The only thing remaining would be an empty husk of metal. A fully operational space station requires regular maintainance so if a Clan is inactive in a system it would make sense that thier stations would fall into a state of disrepair. These derelict stations could be like the already existing shipwrecks... maybe it would be possible to explore them and extract valuable resources from them.

That's by thruppence worth.

soulsacrifice · Post by **soulsacrifice** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:45 pm

That's actually a great idea, it could tie in very well with the new random missions system. If a station hasn't been visited in a month it could be added to a list where it could appear on those random missions (they aren't getting the support they would expect and therefore would need to hire outsiders). Clans would be required to visit long forgotten stations for them to have an effect and enemies could be led straight to their location to destroy them.

I really like that idea, it would be very interesting.

Post by **Marvin** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:53 pm

And you'd lose your station license at the same time. No items available. No contracts either. Haunted stations. Cool.

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:59 pm

From post: 108660, Topic: tid=7659, author=MCCON wrote: I know there are many things that simply aren't realistic in the game but I do like the idea of stumbling across long-forgot stations out in the depths of space that have been abandonded by Clans.

To address (at least some of) the problems raised in the previous posts I suggest another idea: Instead of just disappearing after some period of inactiviy, stations could become derelict. Thier influence on Clan territory decay rate could be removed and also thier effect on station number limit. The only thing remaining would be an empty husk of metal. A fully operational space station requires regular maintainance so if a Clan is inactive in a system it would make sense that thier stations would fall into a state of disrepair. These derelict stations could be like the already existing shipwrecks... maybe it would be possible to explore them and extract valuable resources from them.

That's by thruppence worth.

This does sound good. One draw back might be the hundreds upon hundreds of stations I have built in every one of our systems before the limits went into effect. These stations may still put a drag on the server system updates if they are not removed.

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:07 pm

derelict station a great idea, however, one of the problems we are having is that there are too many stations that are affecting game play in a number of negative ways.

thanks everybody for your ideas and discussion.

Argamonius · Post by **Argamonius** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:35 am

Personally the stations were a let down. I had expected to make a small credit income from each station I built depending on local factors. Wish there was a more personal aspect tot he stations. Non clan members have no reason to build stations, they should be income producers when non-tagged. Perhaps a list could be made available of stations you've made and where. I personally have half a dozen built from talison to vonari (as the c5 flies), I aint going back to look for them.

Perhaps stations could be suceptable to cannons & missles , and destroying one would yeild credits, or random cool items making 'salvage' a new way to make money, and inspire poeple to clean up stations in their areas. If players attack an active station maybe the navy/miners/energy would defend them.

Jack Dandy · Post by **Jack Dandy** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:35 am

I like Arga's idea. Built stations should have more interactivity.

Post by **DaveK** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:49 pm

A few thoughts from a non Clan player who is just dipping his toes into MP

I've just joined MP (and I mean only just!) and hence the problems created by the multitude of player stations have only just become relevant? - of interest?. I was in Olympus trying to complete the IMG "protect a capital ship" contract (just succeeded

). I use EvoMetrics and was hence expecting the usual, "quiet" system - in MP there are lots of player stations - big suprise (yep, I'm naive!).

I've decided to try to be a first response (sort of First Aider) on the emergency calls and therefore decided to equip with medicines, metal ores, water etc so that I could respond quickly. I moved around the Olympus system to stock up. Given the extended discussion about over building, stacking (????) and the problems player stations cause (not including the indigestion Gorfburgers cause from what I can gather from other threads - I enjoyed the one I tried

I offer the following questions and comments to try to focus the discussion a bit (so that I can understand the issues)

What advantage do the player built stations offer to visitors? - they just seem to be more of the same. Could player built stations be allowed to specialise (at least a bit)?

What purpose are they intended to have in the game? - Why do players create so many in the same space? What advantage do they get? Why does this cause a problem?

I remember threads from a while ago about clans claiming ownership of systems by building stations and other clans destroying them. Might it be a question of quality vs quantity? If there were fewer stations needed to control a system and they were harder or impossible to destroy when the main part of the Clan was at work or sleeping in "real life", perhaps requiring a clan presence before it could be attacked, then building stations would become strategic rather than tactical because you could always defend it. In real life you wouldn't invest in an asset that was likely to be attacked by a competitor and leave it un-manned for days at a time.

At the moment, having lots and lots (and lots and lots . . . . and lots . . . ) of identical stations in a small space isn't attractive or helpful to visitors

Perhaps Clans (and individuals) could build "sets" - constructor stations that take in raw materials and produce technolgy to service nearby normal stations that specialise in a certain type of product (e.g. energy complexes, weapons/armament complexes, service complexes). Individual mercs could drop off raw material for a profit or pay for the conversion and sell them on at the other stations for a bigger profit. If Clans build them they would have a complex to defend (and it would justify their "claim" to a region of space

Gorfburger joints aside, if individuals had a station limit then again the choice of where to build would become strategic

Going back to where I started from, as a non-Clan player I don't see that there needs to be a requirement to go for quantity to control an area of space. Even MacDonalds spaces its shops out!. Quality (utility/specialised offerings) coupled with attack/defense rules that would get rid of the need for lots and lots ( . . .etc) stations that can be destroyed by a lone pilot with a holdful of destructors who pops in at a time when the USA is asleep or at work might solve afew of these problems and make Clan space worth visiting.

I expect that I have got the completely wrong end of the stick, but I am actually interested in the issue and its resolution

I'm also interested in joining a clan, assuming that I can find one that I would like to join and that is also interested in me!! Hence the rules for territory control are becoming interesting, though opaque, at the moment

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:00 pm

DaveK, This is how the system works as is,

1. Contracts run by clan-tagged players each give 1 percentage point towards system control.
2. Those percentage points gained go down over time
3. The more clan-tagged stations in a sector, the slower the percentage points decay
4. Sectors each have a maximum of 50 trade stations.

So you see from above why so many stations are built. Hitting the 50 station max prevents other clans from moving in and building THEIR stations. Combine this with the slowed decay rate, the most strategically sound thing to do is to max out the stations in your sector. This has a bad side-effect of keeping non-clan-tagged players from being able to build their own stations however. Compounding this is the fact that small clans, which most are, feel compelled to hit the limit because they simply don't have the time to keep ahead of the decay rate.

Great system for a game with many more players, as I think was intened, and hope will be true. But not the best for our current numbers.

The more i think about it, the better i like Marvin's clan idea.

The station stacking was a different matter that has been resolved. Essentially, 2 types of stations were built on top of another, and so couldn't be entered, and thus destroyed by an enemy clan. I think this covers your questions.

[Edited on 7-8-2011 by Dingo]

Post by **DaveK** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:17 pm

Thanks Dingo

I hope the "solution" to the stacking problem doesn't prevent me from overlapping a fuel constructor and a shield constructor so that I can have a cup of coffee without being bounced!

:P:P:P

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:20 pm

DaveK

I think the simple solution is to have no decay over time. If another clan wants your system they must run contracts. If nobody is challengeing you for it, it stays where you left it. Thus a clan could build only a few stations, and open up the space so that it looks like...space

this would have the consequences of

1. No station spam
2. Small clans in remote systems getting discourage by keeping up won't have this worry
3. Griping about having stations destroyed will stop. Even during wars this gets complained about, usually by all sides involved. Kind of like FT and Prox. Mine griping actually

I think the system is intended to keep player coming back, but I think what happens is that some get discouraged and leave, and some don't like the clutter and leave.

In my experience people who truly enjoy this great game keep coming back whenever they can, so the added pull of having to keep your sectors up doesn't add much.

[Edited on 7-8-2011 by Dingo]

Post by **Marvin** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:24 am

I prefer the idea of signifcantly reducing the number of stations needed to maintain percentages. In other words, continue to tweak the system. If territory doesn't decay over time, there is no incentive to show up on R1 now and then. And the "one off" pilot will be tempted to span the server ... eventually forcing another clean sweep of trade stations.

Cutting the limit in half (or even into a quarter) would still force pilots to build. But it would also allow other pilots a realistic chance to destroy enough stations to gain a foothold in somebody else's territory.

As it is, a clanmember can build 30 or 40 stations, do 100 contracts, then give up (as percentages drop) and quit. Leaving 40 tagged stations and no tactical way for another clan to claim the abandoned territory.

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:28 am

good points Marvin. Maybe some automatic death for stations not visited in X number of days?

Cindy · Post by **Cindy** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:46 am

From post: 110298, Topic: tid=7659, author=Dingo wrote: I think the simple solution is to have no decay over time. If another clan wants your system they must run contracts. If nobody is challengeing you for it, it stays where you left it. Thus a clan could build only a few stations, and open up the space so that it looks like...space

I agree with Dingo on this. As the other clan runs contracts you get less percentage until they get yours at zero and then their percentage starts growing.

The 50 station limit is good, but maybe it should be that every player may only construct that many total stations. Every time one gets destroyed it adds another one on, until you get to the beginning point. I also like the idea about abandoned stations. Maybe you could clear the server of abandoned stations every month or so to avoid to much information on the server.

Shieldwolf · Post by **Shieldwolf** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:19 pm

I've an idea. I wonder if instead of building stations for clan control. How about building carrier groups? To eliminate a clan from that system would mean to eliminate the carrier group. ( Of course there would have to be a set number for control and restrictions of construction to the main system a clan wishes to control.) Of course contracts to maintain % will still be required. The carrier groups would also have the ability to defend itself from hostile clans as well. ( Theoretically)

Just and idea.