Should older player built stations be cleared from Remula One?

Post by **Vice** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:13 pm

Please vote for the option you would prefer. If you vote for the option to remove older station, please reply with how far back you want the cut off point to be.

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:44 pm

I voted to delete ALL stations even though Clan [UE] has an over abundance to them. I voted for this only because most building happened before the limits went in effect. I would hate to have to rebuild the stations lost but it would give new players a chance (and promote more destruction of them (lol))! If this happens I think the amount needed to keep control then should be altered in some way but I am not sure the best way to have it so lets hear from you all.

SeeJay · Post by **SeeJay** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:41 pm

I voted older stations (older than 2 weeks).

Recent activities where clans are establishing new grounds will remain to some extent.

SDWeimer · Post by **SDWeimer** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:52 pm

I think any older stations of clans that are either defunct or have not been seen on the server for a month or so sould be removed.

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:54 pm

I voted to clear them all! No offense to Gorf, but he has exploited a loophole that continues to cause frustration among even SW clan.
As long as "stacked" stations remain they are of no use to any faction or clan, since no one, even caln member, can dock at them.
They seem to be everywhere and so spread out that not even the builder of these "stacked" stations can give an accurate account.
Attrition alone has not proved to be acceptable, since it requires multiple SD's to destroy "stacked" stations.
That's my opinion...

GORF · Post by **GORF** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:12 pm

I say lose them all.

and from brother Dingo's thread.

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

Post by **Marvin** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:22 pm

I vote to remove all current player stations: trade, construct, etc.

But I'd also like to see the number of stations needed to hold territory reduced. To keep anyone from exploiting a loophole by adding additional stations (so that no one can easily take over territory), I'd limit the max number you can build.

As for clans, maybe we should just go with three types of tags: Federation, Alliance and Vonari. Keep the individual clan names but chose which side you want your clan aligned with ... and reap the monetary rewards likewise.

Post by **Vice** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:48 pm

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 .

This may tie in well with Marvin's suggestion about limiting the total clans to three for the time being, Alliance, Federation, and Vonari. Then the sub-clans can be indentified under other names, but they would carry the [AL], [FE], or [VO] tags while participating online on R1.

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.

This wouldn't be a significant change in terms of gameplay, possibly from either a negative or positive balancing effect. Players would just have to ramp up their control score, then go build stations. Whereas now, they can do either at any time and the final effect is still the same. Would there be a benefit to this kind of 'hold-n-wait' building approach?

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.

It is already pretty low (it was lowered a few point builds back). You only need about 10-15 stations to benefit from a major decay reduction. Would you want it at something like only 2-5? Or the per-region total could be lowered from 50 to maybe 10-20 or something just to keep the potential cap far lower.

But I'd also like to see the number of stations needed to hold territory reduced. To keep anyone from exploiting a loophole by adding additional stations (so that no one can easily take over territory), I'd limit the max number you can build.

Pretty much already applies, the max number you can build per territory region is 50 at the moment. So this would be a further reduction to something like 25 or less perhaps. If we delete all existing stations from R1, we may want to step back and test things for a while with all of the legacy stations gone to see if 50 might really be a good limit to work with (particularly after all of the potential 'stacked' stations aren't around any more). Otherwise, build points will be significantly limited for any player as 250X250 sectors is a lot of space to cover for only 50 possible stations. And the entire dynamic of station building and its effects may change quite a bit after the old stations built under the original system are gone.

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:56 pm

If we add a Faction [Fe] and our own clan tag [UE] to be something like [FE][UE] wouldn't this reduce the number of letters we could use in our call sign? If it does can that limit be expanded so we don't have to butcher our call signs?;)

Post by **Vice** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:05 pm

It would indeed limit the number of characters possible. I think 14 is the current character limit and it's that way due to strict packet size constraints. It might be good to use something like:

[FE]UE Tbird

Or just the FE tag by itself with sub-clan identities announced to other players in-game or on the forum. With the above option though, it displays both with just a loss of 2 characters instead of 4.

GORF · Post by **GORF** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:18 pm

"This wouldn't be a significant change in terms of gameplay, possibly from either a negative or positive balancing effect. Players would just have to ramp up their control score, then go build stations. Whereas now, they can do either at any time and the final effect is still the same. Would there be a benefit to this kind of 'hold-n-wait' building approach?"

I think this would avoid the hind and go seek problem we are haveing now with station building, a clan station would be secure unless clan control was lowered in that sector.
This would also give the :other " clan some time to defend thier ter.

"It is already pretty low (it was lowered a few point builds back). You only need about 10-15 stations to benefit from a major decay reduction. Would you want it at something like only 2-5? Or the per-region total could be lowered from 50 to maybe 10-20 or something just to keep the potential cap far lower."

If clan limit was say 10 and station limit was 50 then a new player could build in system held by a clan. As it is now once a clan has filled a system , a noob can't build in that system.

"This may tie in well with Marvin's suggestion about limiting the total clans to three for the time being, Alliance, Federation, and Vonari. Then the sub-clans can be indentified under other names, but they would carry the [AL], [FE], or [VO] tags while participating online on R1."

Awsome idea ,

mooooo

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:29 pm

"This may tie in well with Marvin's suggestion about limiting the total clans to three for the time being, Alliance, Federation, and Vonari. Then the sub-clans can be indentified under other names, but they would carry the [AL], [FE], or [VO] tags while participating online on R1."

I like this but it also confuses me. If there are three static clans for example, who gets to decide policy. For example, lets say 8 random people join the [VO] and one of them just starts killing anybody they see, is that clan now at war with others? I dont know that i'm being clear. Issues of command structure and such.

although the time to implement such a system would be during a station wipe.

[Edited on 6-16-2011 by Dingo79]

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:14 pm

From post: 108636, Topic: tid=7660, author=Dingo79 wrote:"This may tie in well with Marvin's suggestion about limiting the total clans to three for the time being, Alliance, Federation, and Vonari. Then the sub-clans can be indentified under other names, but they would carry the [AL], [FE], or [VO] tags while participating online on R1."

I like this but it also confuses me. If there are three static clans for example, who gets to decide policy. For example, lets say 8 random people join the [VO] and one of them just starts killing anybody they see, is that clan now at war with others? I dont know that i'm being clear. Issues of command structure and such.

although the time to implement such a system would be during a station wipe.

[Edited on 6-16-2011 by Dingo79]

A good reason for "NOT" having a 3 clan system. I don't see what is wrong with the one we have. If we had the 3 clan as sudjested than what if half of a clan like [UE] decided to be [FE] the rest [VO]. and Clan [SW] pilots did the same. Would all [FE] pilots no matter what secondary ID get money from all [FE] systems? If so that would not make sense to me.

soulsacrifice · Post by **soulsacrifice** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:51 am

From post: 108639, Topic: tid=7660, author=thetiebers wrote: A good reason for "NOT" having a 3 clan system. I don't see what is wrong with the one we have. If we had the 3 clan as sudjested than what if half of a clan like [UE] decided to be [FE] the rest [VO]. and Clan [SW] pilots did the same. Would all [FE] pilots no matter what secondary ID get money from all [FE] systems? If so that would not make sense to me.

Yeah, I don't see what's wrong with how it works now. Having a limit on clans sort of forces you to team up with other clans. People on opposing clans can already team up if they choose to, I don't like the idea of being forced into some kind of global clan (even if it's a choice of 1 of 3).

As for stations, i'm all for lowering the limit to avoid clutter. I always thought they should be more expensive, and i'd even like it if they were about 10 times the current cost. I think it would help reduce the clutter and you would have much more invested in them and therefore try to place them more strategically and fight more to defend them. With fewer stations it would be too easy to have them wiped out so it would be cool if they could mask your position from other players when in close proximity of a clan station (say, within 5 sectors).

Whatever you do I hope it can reduce the problems of clutter and having to reset the stations every 6 months, I think most people will be happy for a fresh start but I hope the changes avoid it being necessary in the future.

Also, I haven't said it in a while so thanks Vice for your continued support and effort with this game!

[Edited on 17-6-2011 by soulsacrifice]

Post by **Marvin** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:23 am

From post: 108629, Topic: tid=7660, author=Vice wrote:... build points will be significantly limited for any player as 250X250 sectors is a lot of space to cover for only 50 possible stations.

As it stands now, there doesn't seem to be a real correlation between star systems and the 250x250 grid. Probably because star systems are random (as they should be). The trick, in needing to build a series of stations, is to allow for enough stations to get from one star system to another ... especially if two systems are at opposite ends of one group of sectors.

For that purpose, we have station detonators.

Busch · Post by **Busch** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:27 am

Can we keep clan structures as they are now, and wipe the older stations on Rem-1 successfully ? Like to keep StarWolves Clan together, if at all possible. Call me sentimental.

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:39 am

I like the spacedogs too, but there is something appealing about the 3 clan idea. My only real hang up is that it'll be hard to self-police within ranks as opposed to more free-form clan types.

Post by **Marvin** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:44 am

From post: 108639, Topic: tid=7660, author=thetiebers wrote:A good reason for "NOT" having a 3 clan system. I don't see what is wrong with the one we have. If we had the 3 clan as sudjested than what if half of a clan like [UE] decided to be [FE] the rest [VO]. and Clan [SW] pilots did the same. Would all [FE] pilots no matter what secondary ID get money from all [FE] systems? If so that would not make sense to me.

The main groups wouldn't really be clans, they'd be factions. And they wouldn't operate under identical philosophies. (If they did, they wouldn't really be different.) They would operate in much the same way as countries ... like the U.S. and the E.U. and ... er, China. The clans would be like states (or individual countries within the E.U.) and would still maintain status in the Roleplaying section of the forum. As for pilot names, you could limit the MP tag to one letter ([V], [F] and [A]).

And, yes, you'd share in station payments. We do that anyway. If a member of the Alliance is in MP, doing contracts, he/she will pick up credits at every cycle. Most probably, he/she will be working to increase Alliance % ... but, well ... if he/she only shows up once in a blue moon, then he/she won't really be making much in the way of Alliance credits anyway.

How often do we fight PvP? Except for practice. How much more fun is it to gang up on the Vonari, clan assignments be hanged? How often do we just look the other way so as to do contracts together? In effect, diluting and negating any % we'd be acquiring had we all been in the same clan?

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:46 am

From post: 108646, Topic: tid=7660, author=Marvin wrote:
From post: 108639, Topic: tid=7660, author=thetiebers wrote:A good reason for "NOT" having a 3 clan system. I don't see what is wrong with the one we have. If we had the 3 clan as suggested than what if half of a clan like [UE] decided to be [FE] the rest [VO]. and Clan [SW] pilots did the same. Would all [FE] pilots no matter what secondary ID get money from all [FE] systems? If so that would not make sense to me.
The main groups wouldn't really be clans, they'd be factions. And they wouldn't operate under identical philosophies. (If they did, they wouldn't really be different.) They would operate in much the same way as countries ... like the U.S. and the E.U. and ... er, China. The clans would be like states (or individual countries within the E.U.) and would still maintain status in the Roleplaying section of the forum. As for pilot names, you could limit the MP tag to one letter ([V], [F] and [A]).

And, yes, you'd share in station payments. We do that anyway. If a member of the Alliance is in MP, doing contracts, he/she will pick up credits at every cycle. Most probably, he/she will be working to increase Alliance % ... but, well ... if he/she only shows up once in a blue moon, then he/she won't really be making much in the way of Alliance credits anyway.

How often do we fight PVP? Except for practice. How much more fun is it to gang up on the Vonari, clan assignments be hanged? How often do we just look the other way so as to do contracts together? In effect, diluting and negating any % we'd be acquiring had we all been in the same clan?

So clans die and factions are born? And who decides what faction a clan (if they survive) joins? Not my idea of an improvement. This is my opinion as of right now but I will listen to all ideas.

Post by **Marvin** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:49 am

Von, Fed and Ally were just examples. We could use the factions already in the game (navy, energy, etc.) ... just make them real. Except, there is a drawback: if real pilots took the roles of the AI factions, it would be unrealistic for system reputations to remain static. Actually, now that I think about it, if real pilots were to adopt AI factions, it wouldn't make sense for (example) Alliance pilots to find themselves in an Alliance system that was hostile to them.

And I forgot about IMG. How could a new guild system not include IMG?

Bossk · Post by **Bossk** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:08 am

I voted for all. Reason being is as others have said. It is very hard to remove stations if the person who built them cant even remember where they put them!

With regards to the "Global Factions/Clans/Groups" - not keen on the idea. To force a clan to join a faction removes the freedom of clans. I know Alliance, Fed and Von are only suggestions, but BA are not Von supporters, but we are also not Federation or Alliance supporters. To make us choose a side goes against our clan ideals.

On one point of random clans popping up, I think some kind of recognition by the community needs to be done before they become "official" if you will. What form that recognition takes, I am not sure, but it can not be too restrictive otherwise it could discourage new player groups from joining and making our community appear to be unwelcoming.

B

[Edited on 6-17-2011 by Bossk]

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:12 am

I don't have a problem with the current clan system and do NOT like the "faction" idea.

Flash · Post by **Flash** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:57 am

Get rid of them all

And lets hope when they start getting rebuilt we do it with some purpose in mind.

Post by **Marvin** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:57 pm

Suggestion withdrawn due to its impracticality. Evochron without BA just isn't Evochron. I.O.W. Nevermind.

Dingo · Post by **Dingo** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:10 pm

From post: 108654, Topic: tid=7660, author=Bossk wrote: On one point of random clans popping up, I think some kind of recognition by the community needs to be done before they become "official" if you will. What form that recognition takes, I am not sure, but it can not be too restrictive otherwise it could discourage new player groups from joining and making our community appear to be unwelcoming.

This.

also, looks like the station wipe is pretty much unaposed.